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.