Do you think there is a solution to the SPAM problem, and if so, what is it?

VERBATIMS

Do you think there is a solution to the SPAM problem, and if so, what is it?

There are email programs that require a one time authentication from the sender to add them to an "acceptable" list before any email from them passes through. Once they go through the reply process once, all future emails from that adrees will go through without extra action. Most spam doesn't have a valid return address, so they don't get the approval request.

RSS-type feeds and other options that bypass the Internet seem to offer the best hope. Relying on the Web for timely, smooth and reliable communications, either or email or newsletters, is fast becoming an unrealistic expectation.

Death sentence for spammers?! Anyway, very serious penalties for such abuse, perhaps.

There is no catch-all solution to SPAM because as fast as a point solution is delivered a spammer, hacker, or virus maker will find a way to circumvent or break it.

The only true solution is not to have an email address. Akin to getting rid of your postal mail box. It stops the problem of junk maill, but also deprives you of any correspondence. The next best thing is to use the egarbage can. At least you don't have to shred what you toss away.

not sure

BrowserMail!

Catch 'em and can 'em -- just like the pigs that go in the real Spam.

any solution can be worked around; the best would to get these people out in the open - it is the underground, faceless marketers who are causing the bulk of the problems

Spam filters

some kind of a 2-way permission system

Microsoft's .net passport

You need to hide your marketing message behind some interactive and informational activities for your target to participate in

Pre-approved acceptance lists.

It is so hugh I can't imagine where to begin.

No, I don't think there is a solution aside from the general population completely ignoring the SPAM until it is deemed an ineffective method of marketing even for SPAMMERS.

Spam works enough for it to be worthwhile for the spammers, so it won't go away. The only solution would be to get everyone in the world to agree not to buy anything offered unsolicited. As if.

government intervention similar to the telemarketing program

legislation like the Do Not Call legislation

charge for e-mail

The official governing body(ies) need to concentrate efforts on identified slammers/spammers, who abuse the channel. As a result of the spam abuse, legitimate businesses such as mine are having to modify business practices, adding unexpected financial expenses and time to change our ways of communicating to our customers.

Make it illegal.

Relevant messages from trusted publishers

Stronger filters. Dissolution of the known domains that spammers use

Cloudmark

No I do not

I don't think there is a solution, but it sure would be nice if these people could spend their time and energy doing something productive...

Maybe a solution is to have a secure(?) email system that you register to.

Probably a mix of government regulation (stick) & industry self-regulation (carrot). Scrupulous businesses were play by the rules. Gov't regulators will chase the unscrupulous ones.

Make them pay - just like postal mail

Legislation although I suppose SPAMMERS would simply take their businesses out of the country. I would go as far in some cases to make SPAM a criminal offense (i.e. pornography sent to the inbox of minors). I think also the answer ultimately resides in a killer technology application. It should also be illegal for third parties to sell consumers' email addresses.

ISP and mail service provider shud trap all these SPAMMERS and eliminate those mails coming to Inbox

Make "bounce" and blacklisting the option for email users (not just through ISPs and programs) Make it illegal to buy something through an online email connection Perhaps have credit card companies be the means to crack down on spam senders since they are usually how things are paid for Focus on fools who buy from spammers as a way to make it an ineffective tool for selling anything Software that enables one to bounce back to true sender have a quality screen so a certain amount of sophistication is required in the email so Johnny Ripoff can't create effective selling emails

don't buy those products...they won't spend money on developing ineffective advertising

NO! unfortunately, i think we are stuck with it! even with a spam filter, i am inundated with junk.....

Spam to me is like ads on the radio and in nespapers and on tv... or like junk mail.... I have learned to delete them without really even seeing them.... Filters seem to work pretty well for me... Think TiVO for your inbox....

Don't have one

Authentication tags provided by ISPs. Alternate filter programs that ask "XXXX is trying to send you a message - will you accept?" - no sense trying to suggest that spam filters are infused with enough AI to guess HOW to filter. Thu human brain will triumph over machine!

No - It's not differant than Junk mail that I find in my mail box everyday, the only difference is it is cheaper for the sender.

First of all, it's not just spam, it's the volume of e-mail. It's also the volume of competitors sending the same messages. Very hard to get through and very difficult to differentiate.

Death sentence for spammers

An expensive one. Scrap the present one and build a new, better, one.

Require all email marketers to provide complete contact information including a phone number that will be answered by a live person who can field unsubscribe requests.

What I do with success: Unsubscribe and ask help from our IT Dept.

I don't think so. You'd have to change people first. They'll always figure out a way to bypass any law/proposed solution.

yes -- it's called the 'delete' key

Combination of government and business finding ways to prevent and prosecute it.

Offer more opt-in services such as logging on to a 'site' that inbound marketign can be sent to you. Perhaps a weekly email to an alternate address coudl alert people opting-in to view without cluttering their inbox.

SPAM will self-correct when response rates becomes so insignificant and there is virtually no ROI

No.

Corporate blocking mechanisms seem to work for our company and we are not particularly advanced in IT

Charge for outbound email.

the delete button; prosecution of violators if that's possible

No spam lists. Give us real options of opting out. Make the consequenxces of spamming in spite of opt-out real (expensive).

I think that we will find a way to block the majority of spam. If they can find a way in to our inboxes, we should be able to find a way to kick them out.

clearly legible sender and unsubscribe info

I think there's a simple solution. It should be illegal to send out mass e-mails to people who have not given you their e-mail address. People will opt-in when they want your info; otherwise, leave them alone. Seriously, I think if you receive SPAM, there should be a site where you report this and an Internet 'police' service logs offenders and then one day 'unplugs' them from access to the Internet or sends a virus to kill their hard drive.

Educate marketers better. Redefine expectations of executives and advertisers regarding this communication medium. Stop looking for the silver bullet.

not sure

I really don't know---let me know if you find out. Someone will likely develop a solution, but it needs to be user-permissioned. We have seen enough of the underhanded ways of getting through blockers to be very suspicious.

More regulationws and government enforcement!

I think it would help if people were charged 1 cent each for messages. Legitimate companies such as The Gap have offered to do this with companies like Yahoo and Yahoo refuses. As a mailer, I would rather pay the penny and make sure my stuff gets through and isn't surrounded by SPAM.

The new certifications (sender ID authentication) are a great idea, and should probably help, but only if we get all the ISPs to cooperate together to block non-identified email servers.

nope

Not sure.

ethics. I feel that suggeestion is a bit of an oxymoron.

don�t understand much of the IT world but I hope some day soon the answer is found!

not a convenient one - but I haven't given it much thought.

No, unless there is greater government regulation. Otherwise, the market will correct itself.

the do not call list has worked well for telephone, something similar where people could block/opt out of being contacted so completely unwillingly.

1) Legislation with bite 2) Enforcement of that legislation 3) Enforceable "Do not SPAM" registry

PUNISH THE OFFENDERS

I think there's something to producing a hub that consumers can opt into for only the specific offers and brands they would be interested in. Being able to target a consumer with higher precision and permission and manage the relationship would work well.

I'd like to see SPAM outlawed if the subscriber doesn't opt in.

dunno

better spam filters. more inboxes for bulk mail and then letting you decide if its spam or not for any following emails.

Not currently, but I think some combination of technologies will eventually be deployed to make Spam a negligible hassle for most people.

I would think onyl time would be a solution. If SPAM senders aren't making any money (how much Viagra can be sold in the world) then I would guess the rage would cool down.

Maybe some limits on list sharing and list purchasing.

The only email that you really ever want is the kind that you opt in for. However, there are occasions where mail will come in that you didn't sign up for, but is of interest to you. The best solution would be to continue to refine spam filters. There must be a way to stop the viagra, love making, and other ridiculous emails.

Making it illegal to send "junk" email (non permission based marketing)

Requiring actual opt-in prior to sending emails (as opposed to lack of opting out), increasing penalties for unsolicited email, requiring immediate unsubscription once requested, prohibiting companies from sharing emails with 3rd party marketers.

We all live with "junk mail" at home, so I fail to understand why people get so upset about spam in their inbox. All you have to do is hit delete and its GONE. Or, set up separate emails that keep your work box (for instance) clean.

Technology - spam filters, alternatives for delivery, certificate sending, etc.

the only way to solve this problem is for 'enforcable' leglislation by the state with specific money. where would the money come from? well in the uk there is a fund which is created when drug-busts are succesful and the money is ceased - this money is then used to fund initiatives to educate people about drug-use etc, - maybe a similar scheme should be adopted?

Prosecute the spammers, or make them pay for access. While we're at it, we should do the same for outdoor advertisers - tax them for funding the neighborhood. Or we should demand that advertising reduce costs - cinema advertising should reduce my ticket price. Magazine advertising should reduce my magazine price, and same with pay TV.

Laws against it with stiff fines/penalties

There can be a solution, but I don't think everyone is on board yet. There are too many open questions still, and many attempts to reign-in the worst spam offenders would set off larger issues of freedom of speech, etc. The web is still in it's infancy as far as a communication medium, so there is still the possibility of a "shake-out" between the legitimate and questionable messages that are sent.

It's a fact that when "marketers" are prevented from reaching their audience through one means (i.e. cheap), they will immediately begin seeking ways to overcome the barrier. One way to prevent these so-called marketers from hitting your email account is to delete the email -- dont' open. This method has been tauted by IT professionals for a number of years now. It's a slow and painstaking method, but it will eventually hit these "marketers" in the pocketbook. And once it hits there, hopefully it will put them out of business.

A do not spam list like phones have

regulation

Be careful of what you sign on to, sign up for and don't enter any sweepstakes...you don't win but must click a bunch of interests which give "permission" to the site to sell your email address to advertisers. Make sure everything you want to get is in your address book if it isn't making into your inbox.

Improve filters so that permission items get through and the undesireable stays out -- and keep the process simple. Surely some bright mind out there can do this.

Enforcement won't work because it is outside the control of US regulations. Industry standards have not worked because ethics seem dead. Unsubscribing won't work because all it does is confirm your email address to the unethical. Quality content is mandatory to stay opted-in. If marketers worked harder to be contextually relevant, the good stuff will get through. But context is hard work.

Start by defining it...we each view it differently and so there is too much room "at the margins" to claim that any one email is or is not SPAM. Then, punish the senders with significant enough consequences that it no longer is seem as a feasible or viable alternative to other marketing methods.

ISP's can pretty easily block spam. Force them to action either by law.

I think the emphasis should be on continuity with current customers and not on acquisition. Unsolicited e-mail feels more intrusive than other means of direct.

I wish I knew

Legal action against fradulent product marketers. New technology.

Not that I am aware of.

filters, unsubscribe, etc, etc and DELETE...along with some patience and an understanding that along with good some bad trickles in.

spam filters Cost per email

Though we don't like it, SPAM must work or it wouldn't be used. People must be buying off of the SPAM. If it didn't work it would go away.

Make spam illegal. Create stronger firewalls and programs to block them. Spam them back with viruses (just kidding)

So much of the spam I get is based upon fraud and outright lies ("We received your application," "our meeting on Tuesday," "in response to your inquiry"). A recent trick to get around spam filters is to plug in the recipient's email address as the sender. If it were illegal to send spam based upon or carrying fraudulant statements - and that law had some teeth in it - some of these bozos might go away. However, a lot of it comes from non-US locations and the senders won't give a damn about our laws. The only other solution is to boycott spammers. As cheap as spamming is, it still gets too expensive if there is zero response.

The cost of sending email will rise and spam will fall--the market will fix

Reciprocal exchange of emails (inlcluding email newsletter), so that anyone's inbox becomes a true permission based inbox.

http://www.mailcruncher.com. Doesn't pay attention to content, but to the credibility of the server/domain.

not sure.

I don't think there is an ultimate solution. But a combination of legislation (to fine/shut down people who use it to abuse and offend consumers) and continuing to develop technology (that offers greater consumer control over what gets through to them) will help manage it. Education is also important - many people don't know what steps they could take or what products are available to help them deal with it.

Strict laws and consequences for those who violate the law. No unsolicited cookies from those you don't know.

clog spammers with their own bounced spam

fines for companies that send spam

various authentication ideas hold promise the idea of paying a small fee per email is worth discussing evolving SMTP to a protocol incorporating security has promise Int'l internet providers/gateways need to reduce spam as it comes into N. Ameria Domestic Service Providers need to take more responsibility and help their customers keep PCs from becoming spam/virus zombies

law

I think the SPAM issue might drive Congress to pass a law that charges or "taxes" per email. The charge would be small (pennies per) but it would serve a a deterant to companies sending huge email blasts at virtually no cost. Maybe (like driving) companies will need to get a liscence to conduct email marketing. That liscence can appear as an icon in the subject line. Permission based email marketing must be manadtory. You can only contact those people who register for information on your site.

certification and authentication of senders

Not really sure it can be stopped. As long as there are people out there wanting to make a fast buck, you're going to get spam. Obviously these people aren't in business to help people, besides themselves. That's why they promise penis enlargement, cheating spouses, schedule II drugs, etc.

There are no doubt programmers diligently pursuing various detection methods to stop spam, some of which "qualifiers" seem very obvious, e.g. "Hey There" in many spam messages, mailing address in Nigerian scam appeals.

Better filters. The big problem now is people who are able to do what I think is called "Fishing", where they send you an email from a URL that belongs to a legitimate company and they ask you to update your account information

I think Spammers should be tracked down and fined more seriously.

why don't millions of people get unwanted and dangerous packages in the mail? Because it costs money to send things and there are people involved in the process who (most of the time) moniter (to some degree) what gets sent. FedEx won't take blood or other chemicals, there is a return to sender function which costs the receiver nothing, and a million other packages don't come flooding in when one unwanted one does. Mail was good, email is amazing. We need regulation and it should cost something to send email. That way if someone is looking to send out 1 million email messages about penile disfunction, if they had to pay a high cost "bulk" rate, it might make it less attractive.

No idea about the solution. It is a complex problem

Any ISP worth their salt will provide adequate spam filters and virus protection.

Put spammers in jail Better technology screening

Any ISP worth their salt will provide adequate spam filters and virus protection.

Do not know

Spam is easy to ignore. I'm not sure why people make such a big fuss out of it. Currently, anyone with a brain can tell which emails will interest them or not. I find it disturbing that government groups are trying to pass anti-spam legislation. It's not like they're knocking on my door during dinnertime.

Not really

Bigger and Better filters

Time and legislation. Just like there were 400 car companies in the early part of the century, it will not be worthwhile for people to contiune sending spam, so it will almost die out. Also, another analogy, it was acceptable at one time to drink and drive and now, not only is it against the law, it is also socially unacceptable. Crooks, criminals and bad guys will always be around, but legislation and other tactics will continue to make it harder for them to "break the law".

I think it has to be a technical solution which I am ill-equipped to provide along with actionable, legal consequences. And a sea change in our culture of capitialism wouldn't hurt.

electrodes on the private parts of all known spammers

Develop GLOABL laws (to prevent the bordeless anarchy of email marketing at present). Locate and expunge violators.

I don't mind getting mail that I have subscribed to, but I want unsolicited senders to be fined. Maybe a do not send list like the do not call list.

Consumer awareness/education plus better protection on the desktop - anti-virus packages, firewalls, etc.

no complete solution. There will always be some level of abuse.

Universal filters that firms like MicroSoft should be pushing as a standard.

I think the companies that send out unwanted emails should be the first in line (must submit their site) to receive all the unwanted emails sent in one 24 hours.

No. Not anything short of starting over.

Have a do not send list like the do not call list.

no, I starting to give up on internet and e-mail, I use to like internet but not any more!!!

Regulations, controlling number of email addresses per company.

I think we will devise ways to keep it in check - eventually. We seem to have learned to manage telemarketing and mass mailings, I think we will learn to manage SPAM too.

Hardly any spam gets past my filters from Earthlink and Safari, Apple's e-mail program, and neither is at the most restrictive setting. I get more junk snail mail every day.

Filters,law enforcement,make it a felony along the lines of interstate mail fraud.

My e-mail is filtered three times. I went from over 150 spam messages per day to a manageable 3 to 5 on average.

don't know if there is a solution.

Suppress it in the manner of the "do-not-call-list" for unsolicited telephone messages if not outlaw it (or the scumbags who produce it) altogether.

make it cost to send it...

More hours in the day?

Filters, wide awake surfing. Prosecute spammer scum.

I'm a huge proponent of sending the most personal messages possible and also practice letting go of what doesn't get past the filters. I figure what does get through is enough.

Some kind of authentication system for email.

The major vendors (AOL, etc. should stop the problem, not 'allow' the problem

Better filters. No spam registration similar to no phone solicitation.

Crack down on the real spammers with regulations and fines.

Intelligent filters/

No, I believe the problem will continue.

Charge postage for sending email. Even if it's a fraction of a cent, it would make it too expensive for bulk emailers.

do-not-call email lists

I do, but I am not sure yet what it is. I don't think unsolicited emails are appropriate, neither spyware and the such. I am all for the internet as a medium for free speech, but lumping these things in there is nuts. It is like going back to the day of the door-to-door salesman and saying he had every right to be sitting on your couch waiting for you when you came home from work...looking at the dirt and dust under your furniture so he could assess how better to sell you brooms. No way. These are the culprits to making email marketing suck. People would be more likely to sign up if they weren't afraid of this stuff.

Education. Much of the spam is out there because it it creating $$$$ - people looking for the golden pill/solution/income or whatever. If there wasn't easy money to be made much of the spam I beleive would go away.

I would have to leave that to the technical gurus who do the tech support and software design. But we do try to stay abreast of the latest options, so there may be something new on the horizon.

yahoo has a great system for identifying and isolating SPAM. You can tell them if you do not consider something spam, thus the system learns.

I see spam filters, either via ISPs or sold as separate software, improving dramatically. I also think that consumers must participate in making those filters better. For example, on Yahoo email, users have the option of either deleting spam or reporting it to Yahoo as spam, which improves their filter's ability to identify spam.

Centralized lists of products or services that the PC user might be interested in. Check off what you want to receive and nothing else gets thru, PERIOD. Centralized independent review of product or services list to let the PC user get info, but under no circumstances should cookies or records of such user requests be made known. This could be handled by ISP providors though how honest they would be is any ones guess.

small charges (tenths or hundredths of a cent) for every email sent - payable to the ISPs. That would kill most spammers' business models, but not be too great a charge for consumers or legitimate commercial emailers. The charges would be used to improve anti-spam technology, track uncooperative emailers / ISPs, etc.

A Do Not Mail list like the Do Not Call lists, particularly for the purveyors of Viagra, Cialis, etc., and anything having to do with penile enlargement. Prosecution, especially of phishers and spoofers. I don't even know where to report them. You mention spam watchdogs. Who are they?

Authenticated sender technologies hold a lot of promise. But the one backed by Microsoft has proven to be a failure (surprise).

No solution right now.

Some sort of sender authentication system is the first step. Once senders are authenticated, it comes down to heavy enforcement of existing laws.

Aggressive filtering and "punishing" those that continue to do it. SPASM is telemarketing via the internet. If companies don't stop, the gov't will step in....

Secure Sender ID

Challenge/Response ala MailBlocks

A national "do-not-spam" list

unsolicited email should be banned, if I haven't signed up for it, I don't want it

Multiple email addresses and pre-set expiration dates on unused accounts. Allow users to continue to establish relationships with vendors they would like to receive marketing materials from using various email accounts. Stop utilizing email accounts that become inundated by vendors who have sold or otherwise bartered their mailing lists. Transfer relationships that are desirable to be maintained to "permanent" email account. Oh, and avoid AOL.

Not really, but the receiver just needs to view as junk mail just as what comes in your mail box. If it doesn't apply to you , throw it away.

No its part of the territory.

No. I think hackers are more creative than watchdogs.

technology

I think there are short term solutions, but the people who send spam keep finding ways to get around it.

Effective filters and anti-spyware. Monthly anti-spy sweeps keep my spam to about 30 a day, my spam filter catches all but two or three of these. Very occasionally it catches permission-based emails but these are held for approval and noticed in a quick daily scan of trapped emails. Once released, permission-based emails do not get caught again.

Permission-based marketing. Use free-based e-mail (like Yahoo or Hotmail) for receiving news letters. I use hotmail, as a sepparate account only for receiving newsletters (including yours!). It works me so fine for me!!

Possibly low-level legislation, fines, etc.

Eventually filters will become sophisticated enough to screen much of the noise that comes thru as junk mail. Eventually senders will realize that the buck-shot approach isn't working and folks aren't responding. I imagine that it's cheap enough today, and there is enough response today that makes it worthwhile for the senders. (Although, I can't imagine who's acting on those garbled prescription medication e-mails that have every other word mis-spelled).

block anything that isn't opt in

So far, I think aggressive filtering and RSS offer the best solutions, but there is no final answer yet.

Continued pursuit of violators, opt in lists, tagged email, etc. A good spam filter really helps, and one click logs stuff you want to see if it otherwise would be caught. The RSS feeds are becoming loaded with ads also, so that's not a solution.

http://www.bletter.com/abcedmindedness/2004_05_01_archive.html If the top 5 or so ISP adopted this then spam would not be profitable and away it would go.

I would love to see a tool that would only screen inbound email based on automatic scanning of my address/contact lists and thus seperate all email into two categories; matches list or doesn't match my lists. At least at that point it is up to me to maintain my contacts and yet still allow the opportunity to go through and select non-matched addresses that I may want to read; Outlook rules is too cumbersome yet to be of real value in addressing spam. The best I've used, while not perfect, has been Yahoo's spam filter; at least the number of spam messages is reduced.

Charge postage on e-mails

If idiots would stop responding to dumbass offers, Spammers would not have a profit motive.

Source-based authentication.

No Spam list, like the No-call list? Software that will attack spammers' hard drives and scramble their data, once they receive over a certain number of 'replies' from their disgruntled recipients.

solution- everyone change e-mail addresses and don't give them out!

Not sure

Asking is there is a solution to SPAM is like asking if there is a solution for Junk Mail. Junk Mail certainly hasn't killed mailboxes in front of our houses. We all get it and we all have become accustomed to dealing with it. I don't think at this point we have a solution for it. When you have a mailbox you will get unsolicited mail of some kind...par for the course.

Destroy the lines of spammers...ha ha!...don't know how we could do that but I can dream, can't I? I'm certain there are several people intelligent enough to come up with a design to rid us of SPAM. If there was a way to encode a virus into a reply to a spammer that was activated only upon reply, and not a detectable attachment, that would spead to their internet site causing a meltdown, would be a return of the favor of them sending non-stop, annoying, daily unwanted spam.

Don't respond to SPAM and it won't be commercially viable - it only happens because somebody is making money out of it.

Be an educated user. If peopel don't respond to spam it's effectiveness is diminished.

Real permission - no mail allowed unless I authorize it. Do not send lists like the do not call lists - with accountibility/consequences

Boil in oil all offenders

No, I think it will continue to spiral and a new medium will be found.

Yes I think there is a solution. We need a national "ok to mail from" email list. Some governmental body should maintain it, maybe the post office... as a legitimate email marketer, I would apply to place my "from" email on this list. All ISP's would subscribe to the list and any email that I send would gain 100% acceptance by ISPs. Most likely I'd have to pay a one time fee for registering. If I'm reported as a spammer, the governmental body will investigate and if i am really spamming my email is deleted from the approved list. ISPs would update their whitelists daily.

Improving the infrastructure of the internet, particularly modernizing SMTP. It would help if major vendors (MS in particular) would be willing to work on a royalty-free basis.

Just as the morals and ethics of society evolve, so they will on the internet. You can put a sticker on your letterbox saying 'no junk mail', this is respected. Soon we'll be able to put stickers on our email accounts and these too may be respected, or enforcable by law.

There is no solution for SPAM unless you can disconnect the greed gene...

Charge a nominal 1 cent per e-mail sent outside of one's own organization.

Make it mandatory to be identified EVERY time you send an email. Then when someone sends me SPAM, I can forward it to a complaint center and get some resolution.

Opt in. And good content. Oh yes ... almost forgot, getting into the address book...

Yes. If the ISP start concerning about this problem. They have the key to resolve the problem

At this writing, I do not believe there is a solution. Some tactics which can moderate the problem include things like clear reference lines. Most SPAM can be identified just by the stupid reference lines they have. I simply go through and delete the e-mails with stupid reference lines.

Mor onus on ISP's, plus a regulatory authoriy to govern any e-mail based marketing. Any form of marketing to be governed by a Permits system. Funds taken to be used to offset against administration of such an organisation, plus acting as a discouragement for some.

Not sure -- parallel is TV where anytime you turn on the "boob tube" you are subject to ad messages whether you want them or not. Since today's web is free -- same problem will exist.

Software and firewalls. Be careful who you register with. Maybe a governing body could be established to issue certifications to compliant parties. similar to ISO accreditation.

Make is harder to be anonymous and have much stricter fines (and perhaps jail time) especially for those that send out SPAM of the malicious kind (you know what I am referring to -- those that make things bigger or harder or richer or higher.

Legally crack down

Certainly not to stop sending us Cool News every morning by e-mail : that would be CRIMINAL !!!! How many times do I need to repeat this statement to take that crazy idea off your mind ?!

We use Cloudmark anit-spam software and highly recommend it. It has significantly reduced our spam problem and the time we spend dealing with it.

I like the idea of charging a micro-fee for sending emails. It won't affect 98% of the people out there. Or you could just ignore it. I ignore the 90% of my real mail that is junk. It's not a big deal. My spam filter works well enough that checking my spam folder once a day is pretty easy to do.

Hunt 'em down and string 'em up.

Spam will not go away, when solicitors can send thousands through 'hijacked' servers. However, much spam is spit in the wind, and with contemporary spam filters, and newly created solutions, spam, in my opinion, will not destroy the internet. Eventually, there will be several planes (levels, if you will) of information, and properly coded e-mail will be routed to the proper 'plane' for end-users 'priority' rated access needs.

In my country, Argentina, there is under consideration a future restriction law.

smarter spam filters more ISP responibility

chinese style mass executions of perpetrators

legislation, I guess.

i think most spam is traceable? If so, then regulation, similar to the "no-call" list should help? There is a lot of good info that is available when you "opt in". The "un-authorized" spammers such as porn, etc should be faced with being tracked down, shut down, fined or jailed. If people want it, there should be some sort of "opt-in".

don't know

Maybe SPAM legislation. Email should be preserved for permission based marketing - it is an effective communication tool - particularly when the subscriber wants the information like cool news of the day.

1. Charging for sending e-mails (first 100 pre day are free). 2. Reciever 'authentication' of sender's address. (I believe that Microsoft is working on something like this.)

Span needs to be stoped at the server and ISP - they allow all this junk to be sent down the pipe as they make money with the data. Governments also need to start enforcing the penalties they talk about and make an example of countries and individuals that allow spam.

Proactive Government involvement in actively prosecuting spammers. Heavy fines.

Don't know

I'd like to think it could be made illegal, but of course, since it's generated worldwide, enforcement is probably impossible. Need some better minds than mine to work this one!

Opt-in email addresses - where we permit people to connect to us and push all other incoming messages into a different place we can look at IF we want.

government legislation, spam filters

Kill the Spammers!

Tougher enforcement of existing laws. Clinet side filtering based on traceable verifiable sender addresses. Legal changes making it contracts entered into as the result of unsolicted e-mail nonenforcable--I want consumer activists to be able to order the fake Viagra, accept shipment and still reverse the credit card charges. To sooner spammers are homeless and starving, the better.

Advances in technology plus better anti-spam policies.

a service that allows you to enter sources of email that you are willing to receive. A clearinghouse.

Yes, but it takes more technically sophisticated minds than mine to develop the solution. One thought is for legit companies to register with a central clearing house that would in turn coordinate with the developers of spam filters, allowing e-mails from registered domains to flow through. The central clearing house would have to be financially supported by those companies that wish to make use of e-mail marketing.

Filtering solutions and educating nonprofessional computer users about what is spam and how to combat it. Also, convincing people that A) spam does not make your penis longer or girls like you better, and B) the only people who get rich off spam is spammers.

If an individual signs-up and/or gives their email address to a specific organization, only that organization can use the email address. clamping down with financial fines fro those who share and/or sell theirt email data basees.

Personal responsibility. Find a powerful spam filter and then make the effort to make sure you receive what you have subscribed to. And don't spam other people.

Use authentication technology for authorized newsletters.

There IS a solution ... the technology needs to catch up with the problem

Keyboard manufacturers might want to increase the size of the delete button.

man, the problem is huge - and I have no solutions

More inclusive screens

I think that individuals will have to ask permission to send you an email. Then once an emailer is certified they can send email freely. This is perhaps easier than trying to exclude emails from certain senders (because we know the senders will just use new servers.)

law and policy enforcement, make ISP providers responsible to check on senders of large distribution lists without special agreements

Clearly marked 100% opt-in. People on get what they sign up for, and if they get something they don't want, they respond to the e-mail, and they never receive it again.

That's a tough one. Think of all the junk that comes through the regular US mail.

Enforcement and Penalties -- we can put phone numbers on a Do Not call list, we should be able to put e-mail addresses on a do not spam list

Better filters.

I wish I knew.

True opt-in. NO selling/sharing etc I opt in for cool news, I get cool news. I don't want offers from friends or asociates

Honestly...not in the actual business model! Maybe if we evolve with another approach !

Like any other free web service, there should be a paid version that generates sufficient revenue to fund anti-spam investments and requires senders to participate in the paid service, thus providing domain and responsible party information. Users who violates the terms of use would be liable to fines (a la "do not call") and the revocation of their account(s).

Apply a cost to the delivery of email. Unfortunately that is the only solution.

Prosecute a few of the worst offenders with severe penalties. Make it so any company who violates anti-spam regulations will go out of business as a result of being prosecuted.

If I had a solution, I'd be making money on it right now. I don't think an effective solution exists.

postage

yes. reachon.com

hate to say it, but probably a pay service to take people off the e-mail list...just like phone lines have

Even though I know it only would sort of work in the US, I think legislation couldn't hurt.

Bigger fines, tougher enforcement, jail time for repeat offenders. And maybe banning the ba****ds from owning or operating computer or text messaging equipment for all time.

People do not want to read spam messages - the pop up ads and the banner ads are more effective. If consumers are interested in these products they will click on the banners to get more information.

Send it to another folder on your "Outlet Express."

opt in programs

Not really. But if, as is widely rumoured, 90% or so of SPAM comes from only half a dozen operators, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to close them down!

The best hope is a technology solution that allows you to verifiably identify the sender, and which is integrated into Outlook and the ISPs. I don't think legislation can have any impact.

Pay for email - small ammount for regular use but (more) expensive for spammers

I think the permission piece is the key.

Nothing existing right now. Big problem is that reasonable filters pull out some good e-mail which requires regular review of all filtered messages.

a fully authenticated system where there are no anonymous users, or at least no anonymous senders. senders will be required to verify their identity and get digital certificates

Apply a usage 'tax' to be collected and passed on by ISPs in the same way POS taxes are collected by the retailer and passed on to government.

d/k

There HAS to be a solution, I just do not know what it is.

Permission based only....have people sign-up...and provide options...in our case we offer a e-news and and a printed version of a nwes letter. We poll recipients by phone and ask them frequently what their level of interest is and if they want to remain on our database. So re-asking for permisson is good PLUS it allows for input. Combo of e/print/phone seems the answer...tailor the approach to the recipient...one-on-one!

I don't know if there is a solution--as long as one person responds to a SPAM by buying something, it will continue.

Stamps for e-mail?

Start suing the Spammers, especially those selling drugs, pornography, dating services, scams from outside the US, or "prize drawings".

- more sophisticated opt-in functionality which recognizes that users will need to add senders to their private "user groups"

Block it all!

Separate e-mail into previously accepted addresses, new addresses , and previously rejected addresses. At least recipient would be guaranteed at least 1 mailbox of presumably welcome mail and 1 mailbox of unwelcome mail. The new address box would be discretionary reading.

Utilizing stronger identification methods (e.g. trusted IP addresses, digital certificates, etc.) to eliminate spoofing, open relays, and other methods spammers use. Other than that, we can try to track down spammers and shoot them. ;-)

be very to whom you give your email to; either person or company

I hate to say it but charging the sender is a good way to limit the spam that gets sent. If they want to send, they have to pay.

I don't know that there is a "solution" to the SPAM problem. I think ultimately these messages will become such mindless clutter that most orgs and companies will begin to consider abandoning this component in their marketing portfolios because of their utter lack of efficacy.

I think laws should be passed for types of advertising and marketing on the internet via emails. I think all email addresses must have full contact info required or you cant have one. This way you can detect who is sending what - fine them and collect those fines which will eventually add up to millions which we could use to better our communities..Or pay our police and teachers a little bit more than they are getting paid now.. FYI: I am neither a police officer or a teacher.

precision filters

No,The internet is too wide open. Both a blessing and a curse

RSS seems like a good start, as my blog compiler goes and gathers information that I specifically direct it to pull rather than having content pushed out to us. I'm sure, however, that this will be circumvented by a bright marketer soon.