These days, it seems that spam (which has, despite being a trademark of Hormel Foods Corporation, fallen into common usage as a result of Monty Python) is an unavoidable consequence of having and utilising an e-mail address of some sort. Various proposals have been put forth, some legislative, others software-based, but all have failed to curb the growing tide of unsolicited electronic mail.

The following document is an amusing (if depressingly accurate) universal rebuttal for any spam solution one cares to propose:

Your post advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
[...]
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems [...]

Considering more than two thirds of the world's spam originates in the United States of America, which recently passed the most aggressive anti-spam legislation thus seen, legislative solutions clearly aren't being enforced stringently enough.