The Red Cross or [insert your fave charity here] set up a 'deposit_email_ID' identity server. A deposit of $5 is required per ID, and a float of $150-$300 will do for the average user.
All email administrators can accept emails with validated Red Cross IDs, via a web service at which all emails can be verified at the source using the unique ID.
Now, I'm an evil spammer. I pay my $5, or $5,000 for 1,000 ids and start spamming. Any user who reports my spam (using the ID number from the Red Cross) back to the server gets the deposit 'donated' to an international aid package. Reporting is known as 'flipping'.
Here are the rules that avoid work-arounds:
1. You have 4 days to report spam, after this time the ID returns as a credit to the sender's system. This is why $150-$300 should be enough of a 'float' for most users -- they keep getting fresh IDs to burn from their 'pool'.
2. If you 'report' an ID, then that sender will never be able to send a validated ID to you again unless YOU the RECIPIENT pay $100 to the charity. Why? Well, if you get mad with your boss and 'penalise' him by forcing a $5 Red Cross donation on him, he'll be happy to know you have to pay $95 to charity for being reckless, and $5 extra to reimburse the sender, just to get re-instated as a recipient of Red Cross IDs from that user.
Yes, a spammer could just pay $5,000 to send out 1,000 emails, but would they? Is that cost-effectve advertising? And wouldn't it be nice to receive spam knowing that each unwanted email was 'giving' $5 to charity?
Yes, I could 'close the deal' on an eBay auction by 'flipping' the seller's email address (knowing I don't need, nor want, another email from that person). In this case, the seller probably has little recourse for getting the $5 back. Over time you might pay about $70-$80 dollars a year on charity due to 'reckless flippers', but, well, it is a tax deduction, and don't you feel better?-- not_only_but_also, Jun 10 2005 ...oh yeah, and the charity earns interest on your deposit or 'float' as long as you hold a positive balance. Nice!-- not_only_but_also, Jun 10 2005 The more I think about it, the more I like it.
Example:
I'm a carpet company with a nice, large customer database. I have a general catalogue/sale email to send this month, and a product recall alert.
As manager, I decide to send my catalogue/sale email WITHOUT Red Cross IDs since I know that people like to 'flip' these kinds of emails. I also know that many of my client will 'auto-trash' the catalogue since it contains no Red Cross ID. Fine. No harm, no foul.
I decide to send my product recall with a Red Cross ID. Some people may flip this email, but 1) it is important my customers know about the potential fire hazard with type CT27-A carpets, and 2) few people with common sense will flip this email because they will not want to pay $100 to find out in the future that CT27-B carpets also present a fire hazard. (Not to mention the karma aspect of 'flipping' a public service email!)
Finally, I decide to send the catalogue/sales email as a Red Cross ID email to my top 100 clients ('risking' $500) if 2% of these 'flip' me, well not too bad. If 98% flip me -- lesson learned! It is a $500 opt-out message cost I've copped from my clients. Hopefully they don't feel too miffed about the 'SPAM' since I gave $5 to charity for 98% of them!
:)-- not_only_but_also, Jun 10 2005 I don't understand this at all, sorry.-- waugsqueke, Jun 10 2005 neither do I.-- zeno, Jun 10 2005 random, halfbakery