I think this is BRILLIANT, one of the best Why Not ideas. Let's figure out how to make it happen.

If you vote against this idea, can you please leave a comment so I can understand?

Thanks

The real problem with SPAM or UCE lies within SMTP (simple message transfer protocol) I haen't read al the postings so I don't know if someone has posted a similar reponse. Anyway SMTP is an old protocol. Imagine if all of your snail mail vis the USPS was on a postcard in stead of an envelope? Anyone who handles the postcard can read the message. Also SMTP can be easily spoofed to falsify the true sender. Also, the user community needs to stop responding to SPAM email.

This is one of those "why didn't I think of that" ideas. Such a simple solution. Great idea!

Millions will sign up in the first month - and consumers have been wanting this (easy opt-out) for years, but the industry is petrified about the possibility.

The sad fact of the matter is that the more junk mail you receive, the more stuff you buy. (I've seen research) and if you do actually buy, then expect to get a whole lot more. Even if you profess to dislike junk mail, the marketers still get sufficient responses from people in that category to make it worthwhile to continue to send the stuff.

Meanwhile USPS survives on junk mail - email has reduced the traffic in personal and business correspondence, while UPS/Fedex have taken away huge profits from the parcel business. Junk mail is the only thing looking good.

Moreover the financial institutions, telcos and other big businesses rely on income from sending huge amounts of junk mail.

So trying to get this past the Hill requires going up against not only the DMA (Direct Marketing Association), but also the US Postal Service - very powerful institutions. It was done once with the do not call register - who wants to lead the charge this time?

You might get the mailers themselves to stop sending junk mail if you had a "NEVER EVER EVER Responds to Junk Mail" list. Then their own self-interest would tell them not to waste money on those addresses.

How to police it, though? Make the mailers share the address of anyone who responds even ONE TIME to a bulk mailing? Maybe . . .

This place already exists: http://www.junkbusters.com/

I love this idea! In an effort to reduce my junk mail several years ago, I tried sending the junk back to the senders in the postage paid envelop along with a note stating to discontinue sending me junk!! It didn't work, but at least I had less to throw away! SEND ME NO CRAP TOO!!

I think that the problem is Of-shore spammers who can then use this list to spam those that don't want to be spammed.

I think I prefer a micropayment system that my ISP could implement, e.g.

If mail was deliverted to my ISP that I requested not to be WhiteListed to me, or for a non existant user, the sender would be told that to attempt to deliver this mail they would have to pay, say $0.01 . Either they would not re-send it, or if they did, it might be to a non existant user or I might accept or reject it.

Thus the ISP would be paid for handling the mail, the sender would be charged for sending mass mailing, and not know if I was a real user or just a loss to them.

So I agree with a Do Not Send list, but let my ISP hold it for me.

The basic idea of a list is correct, but you have it backwards. Anyone who WANTS to receive junk mail should be required to sign up for it. Under this system the default condition is "no junk mail". Direct marketers would be only permitted to send mail to those who had specificaly authorized them to do so.

I think there is some confusion judging from the responses to this good idea. The idea concerns postal mail (not email). Ideas for how to get rid of spam in email don't belong in this post as it regards physical stuff in your mailbox, not digital promises to lengthen some part of your anatomy. Is there a moderator who can take comments that don't apply to a more appropriate location?

I think the idea is a great one and as the national do not call list has demonstrated, there is a compelling desire among people not to be bothered any more with this kind of stuff.

As you note, an offline version has been in existence for years.

From http://www.dmaconsumers.org/cgi/offmailinglistdave#moreinformation

"Online Mail-in Option (Free):There is no charge for registering by mail. However, it is not as fast as the "Complete Online Option" (below). Please complete the form below. When you have finished entering your information select the "Register by Mail" button which will generate a unique tracking number to speed the processing of your request. Please print out the completed form and mail it to us at:

Mail Preference ServiceAttn: Dept. 11813482Direct Marketing AssociationPO Box 282Carmel, NY 10512"

Having apparently read your post, they now offer this:

3) Complete Online Option ($5 Charge): There is a $5 processing fee for registering with the MPS service online for five years' service. You will need a valid credit card to register online.

Unfortunately (and I speak as a direct marketing professional), both methods works extremely well if you wish to stop receiving junk mail from Citibank, AT&T etc. All major companies scrub against the DMPS list before mailing. Why would they spend money mailing to someone who has already gone to the trouble of indicating their distaste for direct mail.

It won't do a darn thing against the little guys, or the unscrupulous guys, though. It only stops companies who subscribe to the DMA Code of Ethics.

So, while your website is a great idea, what needs to happen first is federal legislation.

I recently read that a European country has instituted a very clever solution. Low tech, high effect. Stickers were sent to every household. If you don't want unsolicited mail, you put the sticker on your mailbox, and the mailman is forbidden to deliver it.

Sometimes simple is best!

How do you enforce it?

It sounds good to me, i can only think of two arguments aginst the idea. 1) no way to descriminate against the unwanted mail and mailers you actually want. Probably is a way to do it just room for error. 2) It's unenforceable and inpractical. Theres very little money in preventing spam and a great deal of money and employeement in it. Right now most advertising jobs, the postal system, even printers need the level of useless mail to continue at their current level of production, while I would not shed a tear over ad exec's become unemployeeable it's just too many jobs and money to just switch it off.