Forum Moderators: skibum
For me, Dyson's explanation is clearer than what is found on the Vanquish site.
Vanquish's definition of SPAM seems to be even a single unsolicited piece of commercial mail. Because of that I believe it will fail.
I know some mailers doing unsolicited bulk emailings which of course are perfectly legal right now as long as they don't contain fraud or pornography. They feel that no regulations will ever impact them as long as people define SPAM to include such non-bulk mailings. There are too many exceptions for the regulators to ever impose laws.
This idea is interesting because it does not require any laws to implement. It is a free market approach to solving the problem. Still, I see it as tilting against windmills.
I expect than not everyone will agree with me.
One of thw flaws was described but not addressed:
After some months, however, Alice's interest in Juan diminishes. She doesn't quite know how to tell him, though, so the next time she gets a message from him she selects penalize-and-banish.
Spam is a problem, but it's not such a huge problem that we need to put in place a silly punishment scheme to get it handled.
Why involve money at all (other than the company wants to make lots of it)? The system actually still works as described without any charges at all.
It's simply a modified white-list, except some middle-man collects money from "evil-doers".
Also, it will not stop spam by any means, since the email address, IP address and so on can be spoofed very easily. So spammers would be free to send their spam, and good-intentioned people and companies who are not forging their email headers might get penalized.
Richard Lowe
