Is email killing itself?

[george]

With people on here commenting that they didn't recieve their emails from Actinic and it seems that some emails just don't seem to arrive these days, just wondering if email is no longer the (almost) foolproof method it once was for online communication.


Will there be a better email variant in due course?

[TraceyHand]

With people on here commenting that they didn't recieve their emails from Actinic and it seems that some emails just don't seem to arrive these days, just wondering if email is no longer the (almost) foolproof method it once was for online communication.


Will there be a better email variant in due course?

I'm training my carrier pigeons as we speak....

[acompton]

I'm training my carrier pigeons as we speak....

There is a set of formal documents known as 'RFCs' that specify the various internet protocols. Some of them are written by Tim Berners-Lee, which gives you an idea of their significance.
This one is particularly apt: www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2549.html (note the date of publication)

[pinbrook]

it seems that some emails just don't seem to arrive these days, just wondering if email is no longer the (almost) foolproof method it once was for online communication.

TBH email has never been a foolproof method of communication but the biggest problem nowadays is spam and other malicious mail. This causes mail servers to get blocked, overloaded etc and spam filters also will have the inevitable false positive now and again.

Sady there is no solution except to track down the spammers and force feed them tins of spam for a month

[Mark H]

I would quite happily pay, say, 5p per email if it guaranteed delivery and got rid of spam. It seems a bit daft for businesses to be relying on a free but imperfect system.

[jont]

There has certainly been a marked increase in emails not getting through - which is understandable with companies trying to protect their systems but annoying for legitimate users.

[Mike Hughes]

Most spam comes from botnets and the infected PCs are easy to spot but no-one takes any responsibility for doing anything about it.

I think the solution is for ISPs to be responsible for their members. That way the vast majority fo spam will be cut off before it gets anywhere. Anyone with a compromised PC will be warned and then cut off. It's win-win really because it will stop spam and let people with compromised PCs know about it.

ISPs are reluctant to do this though because they might actually have to do some work like talk to their customers.

It's easy to police as well and doesn't need every country to have the same laws. Any ISP that still lets spam enter via their network will face the same sanctions and find their access gets blocked as well. After this it's only the spammers themselves who can send spam and they'll be easy to track down and prosecute.

Mike

[fergusw]

I think the solution is for ISP's to be responsible for their members.

Couldn't agree more.
It would be a lot of work for the ISP's (there would likely be counter arguments about privacy rights, freedom of speech etc) however the saving on the networks and the overall benefit to the internet community would be huge. Saving bandwidth and eliminating SPAM would save costs all round - maybe even see some of the cost savings filtering down to the end user

[jont]

The money they could save in terms of compromised systems, bandwidth etc would easily be clawed back from support members monitoring accounts and letting them know that they are either infected bot-nets or to cease and desist from further activities.