Solution 1: Charge everyone a penny per email
There are several variations on this most popular scheme. For example, one scheme involves a central entity collecting money the way it's collected for regular mail. Another scheme involves an interoperable spec whereby if you send me mail, you must pay a penny to me to make it past my filters. When I reply, my subsequent penny of indebtedness to you for replying to the e-mail would cancel out the sender's penny.

In either case, the thinking behind this idea is that if everyone is charged a penny for each and every email they send, legitimate mail users would incur a nominal charge at worst and spammers would go broke because the return on investment could never justify the cost of sending so many millions of e-mails even at less than half a cent per send.

What's wrong with this approach? As well intended and fair as it seems, this idea is one of the most slippery slopes I've heard of when it comes to stopping spam. Placing a per-message charge on royalty-free, SMTP-based mail is the equivalent of erecting a tollbooth on the Internet. It's the antithesis of everything the Internet stands for and the means by which it achieved its level of ubiquity.

Switching the Internet to a medium with a tollbooth mentality is opening a Pandora's box. Managing a microtransaction infrastructure for delivering e-mail can be a costly and unwieldy proposition. Someone has to be around to arbitrate disputes and provide customer service for failed delivery and other problems. Who is going to pay this infrastructure and staff?

Once you start paying a penny, could it go to two cents? Where does it stop? Also, in the name of spam, is it fair to charge legitimate bulk e-mailers for every item of mail they send, and to which the recipients have deliberately subscribed?

I find it reprehensible that any money is being exchanged on the account of spam. The fact that service providers charge money for advanced spam filtering--a practice about which many readers have written to me--is deplorable. I can only hope that vendors, who are empowered to do something about spam through the development of an interoperable anti-spam specification that could be embedded in their products, see the light. Microsoft, for example, generates a revenue stream from MSN 8's Smart Junk Mail Filter. In the end, the solution to the spam problem shouldn't cost us even one cent, let alone thousands or millions of cents.

Solution 2: Put that spammer in the slammer
Aside from the aforementioned financial burden, a lot of people would like to see the spammers penalized in other ways. Some people favor passing legislation. Others want to take the law into their own hands. Several readers are so angry, they've said something along the lines of, "If I ever get my hands on one of them, the rest will stop based on the example I set with the one I caught."

Indeed, it may not be long before we start fantasizing more about spam rage in the same way we do with road rage. I don't suggest taking the law into your own hands, and I don't advocate the law taking spam into its own hands. I've received dozens of letters about how this state or that state has either passed a law or is about to pass a law, or how the federal government needs to take action. People have suggested overloading the inboxes of Congressional representatives with spam rage mail so that they'll get the message loud and clear.

Suggesting that this problem can be solved through legislation is an admission by some that they don't understand the global nature of the Internet. At this point, at least half my spam is coming from some place outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law enforcement bodies. Even if more stringent laws are passed, enforcement would be a nightmare. It's difficult to imagine any legislative scenario that in the long run would justify the resources that would be needed to enforce spam laws. Think of the litigation that could result from arguments over how to define spam or the challenges of tracking down wily spammers.

I've tracked down the senders of what I thought to be spam only to learn that someone else took the time to subscribe me to an e-mail that I didn't want. Without going into the motives for such a detestable action, technically that e-mail isn't spam. Sure, if the sender of the e-mail had a double opt-in process whereby I was sent an e-mail to confirm my subscription, I might never have received the spam, er, e-mail in the first place. I don't believe the answer is for the federal government to pass a law that makes it illegal to send me an e-mail unless a double opt-in process is applied. The various marketing lobbies would fight this tooth and nail in Washington and in the end, even if they lost, it wouldn't matter. Why? Let's go back to my first point--the global nature of the Internet.

Some people will argue that legislative action may not solve the problem completely, but at least it chips away at the problem. That's a short-term view. If we figure out how to clamp down on domestically generated spam, the spammers will just move offshore and we'll be right back where we started.

Solution 3: A third-party solution
A funny thing happens when you write about spam in a newsletter that reaches over one million people. Everybody who makes an anti-spam solution and many who use those solutions advise you that a solution exists and if I'd only give it a try, I'd be convinced.

Indeed, there are many solutions--some third-party products and others built into existing products--that target the needs of those of us who are fed up with spam. But there are two problems with these solutions. First and foremost, from one solution to the next, your mileage will vary. Some anti-spam solutions stink, and some are pretty good or even very good. As you move upscale towards the better end of the mileage spectrum, the cost starts to escalate. A lot of people wrote to me about how their e-mail providers, like the aforementioned MSN 8 offering, do a pretty good job of junk mail filtering for the price.

If we actually have to pay hard cash for spam filtering, then the spammers have already beaten us. I, for one, won't give into this form of extortion (as indirect as it may be). In fact, it's another borderline outrage that some vendors are actually making money on both ends. On one hand, they're providing the technology and services that make spam possible, and on the other, they're selling technology that combats spam.

Users should not pay for the solution
Spam is the scourge of the Internet. It threatens to bring a halt to all legitimate e-mail. It's in the best interests of the providers of e-mail technology and services to agree on an interoperable solution where an e-mail client and an e-mail server are talking the same anti-spam language. The alternative is continued abuse of customers as more and more legitimate mail stops reaching its destination. The product and service providers will end up with a much bigger revenue problem down the line if they don't address it now. Not only is it in their best interests to collaborate on an interoperable anti-spam specification, the engineering of that specification into the solutions that we're already using should come at no cost to us. Period.

I want to thank everyone who has been contacting me with suggestions, and offers of emotional, spiritual and even financial support. (Like I said, you shouldn't have to pay, so I'm politely refusing). There were more suggestions than I could digest in this column. I'm still rather certain industry-wide cooperation is the way to go, and that's what I'll be advocating in this space for as long as spam keeps filling my inbox, and my outbound mail doesn't make it to its destination.

Vote now. Do you want the industry to band together to put an end to spam once and for all? Use TalkBack below and make sure the subject line says "YES" and feel free to share any of your personal feelings with your fellow ZDNet readers. Stay tuned for the next chapter in David's ongoing campaign to send spammers packing.