Consumerist doesn’t get it?

The NYT and the Consumerist don’t seem to get the idea behind micropayment spam-protection schemes. Or at least they gloss over the benefits that AOL and Yahoo are providing whilst attacking their admittedly shady method of profiteering on spam control.

Update:  Upon further reflection, I realized that my original comment didn’t reflect what I was trying to get out there.  AOL and Yahoo are only going part of the way in spam-prevention here.  The ideal system would involve the email recipient to set a price to send him/her an email.  You could also whitelist friends so they didnt have to pay a thing.  This system would drastically cut down on the spam, and would still allow people who didnt know you to email you for a minimal fee, say one penny.  (Or you could set it to a dollar and no one you didnt whitelist would ever email you.)  AOL and Yahoo’s systems are a step in the right direction, but don’t really address the problem.  Neither company will see widespread adoption of their system.