upvote
This is impractical because micropayments are impractical.

I have a better idea; split the problem into two. First, require all messages to include an `Automated: 0|1` header; eventually downranking / banning providers that don't include it, like we now do with DKIM, SPF, DMARC and such.

For messages with `Automated: 1`, require informed consent, mediated and verified through the recipient's provider.

It's impractical to require pre-approvals on every message, because many people genuinely want human-to-human contact from semi-strangers. On the other hand, requiring consent without verification is ineffective, because it is too easy to pretend consent. This design splits the spam problem into two much more tractable su-problems, detecting lying senders that mark automated messages as non-automated (easy with modern AI + basic statistical analysis), and verifying consent for honest automated senders (just requires a protocol).

reply
> People shouldn't be able to send emails to you without your prior approval (which you can revoke at an instant).

this sounds terrible... i've gotten so many useful random emails from strangers over the years.

reply
Depends how it's designed. I've been doing something similar for almost a decade. If I get an email from a non-whitelisted person, they get an auto reply asking them to go through a simple hoop. Once they do that, the email lands in my inbox.

Yes, many people go through that hoop!

I can still see their emails if they don't. They site in a Quarantine folder. I used to look at it frequently to catch the occasional straggler, but I rarely do that now. I've set up an LLM to go through all my quarantined emails in the last N days, and send me an email on which of the quarantined emails probably should be viewed.

I'm OK missing out on a (very rare) good email if it means I don't have to deal with crap mass mails. And let me tell you: Life is great when you don't deal with mass mails.

reply
ah, quarantine makes sense

i handle the overload a different way... i age everything out of my inbox one day at a time, each gets a label showing the remaining days; they start at 7 and count down. that way i only ever have 7 days of email to look at. it also makes it clear who the big offenders are... if 10% of the emails are some new marketing thing it's easy to see and unsubscribe. i do hate that there's still so much manual work involved though, i would love if marketers had to pay.

reply
> if 10% of the emails are some new marketing thing it's easy to see and unsubscribe

I built my system because I tired of finding ways to unsubscribe.

Now I can subscribe without abandon and never worry about any of those emails coming into my inbox.

reply
i like it in theory but there’s something in me that doesn’t want emails just discarded like that… i want to be off the list. a personal failing, i’m sure. :)
reply
Do you have a writeup somewhere about how this system works?
reply