[Am-info] Gates forecasts victory over spam

[Gene Gaines]

Erick,

Gates' "payment at risk" is about is stupid an idea
as I have heard.

Let's see.  Between various hosting and ISP arrangements,
I probably could set up 50 different email addresses, then
of course add 200 Hotmail accounts ... or that guy I don't
like in the next block, he runs a large email list, I'll
send an insulting email to his list spoofing his address
... of course it won't help me with SPAM I receive because
those emails use made-up FROM addresses ... oh gosh, this
is so stupid as not to be worth discussing.

But what is the logic to this?  My supposition is that
Gates has long wanted to seize control of web-based monetry
transactions, and also of course to control email addresses.
Remember "Passport" and a whole bunch of similar attempts.

I am disgusted.

Gene Gaines
gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com

On Saturday, January 24, 2004, 11:04:41 PM, Erick wrote:

> I honestly haven't figured out yet whether Gates is
> socially AND politically brain-dead, but this item
> should give some food for thought:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3426367.stm

> Here's the gist of it:

> =============================================
> ...
> But ultimately, Mr Gates predicted, spam would be killed 
> through the electronic equivalent of a stamp, also known as
> "payment at risk". 

> This would force the sender of an e-mail to pay up when an 
> e-mail was rejected as spam, but would not deter senders of
> real e-mail because they could be confident that their mail 
> would be accepted. 

> "Microsoft is pursuing all three approaches, and spam will 
> soon be a thing of the past," Mr Gates asserted. 
> ...
> =============================================
> What's this?  Osama Bin Spamster-fixer?

> Another artificial,
> wannabe-topical-social-engineering-mind-fart,
> IMNSHO, to make Wall Street hay.  I think.

> Don't you just love these technological fixes from Redmond?

> Bill missed his chance to be on the other side of the Buffalo Nickel.



--