AOL/Yahoo Will Charge For Email
Fred, Thought you'd like to know about this
new policy that will directly affect your AOL subscribers.
Seems as if AOL will start charging for incoming
e-mails coming from a mailing list. Those that don't pay will be
sent to the Bulk Mail box.
http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3581301
Thanks for the wonderful newsletter! ---John
That's true, John. AOL and Yahoo will
both start using the "Goodmail"
sender-verification service, which charges
senders up to about a penny per email to get a magical seal of approval
that will let the email past AOL's and Yahoo's filters. AOL and Yahoo
say that because spammers won't pay, this charging for inbound mail "will
help identify legitimate mail and reduce junk email, identity-theft scams
and other scourges that plague users." Wow, sounds great!
Except for a few teensy little details: First,
and most obviously, there's the highly questionable idea that, if you can
pay a penny per email, you're legit. It's like buying an indulgence
from the church in the middle ages:
All it takes is some disposable income, and
you can buy your way out of being labeled a sinner, er, I mean spammer
What a marvelously cynical way of doing business: If you can pay, you must
be a good guy! (Yes, there's more than that to sender verification,
but it remains in essence a simple means test.)
Plus, the majority of people who'd worry about
being "verified" are legitimate emailers who'd never spam in the first
place. So, sender verification services--- like most of the other
half-baked antispam tools in use--- tend to punish the innocent.
But it gets worse: You see, as part of the
deal with Goodmail, AOL and Yahoo will share in Goodmail's revenue.
That means that AOL and Yahoo have a profit motive for using Goodmail.
AOL and Yahoo now will make money from both ends of the email delivery
process--- a potential gold mine for them:
Not only will they be charging their customers
to read their mail (via the normal subscriber fees) but now AOL and Yahoo
will also try to charge for sending email into the AOL system. Kind
of puts a different spin on it, doesn't it? What a deal for AOL and
Yahoo! They should replace the famous "you've got mail" clip with
a simple "ka-ching!" cash-register sound.
Goodmail has competitors, and they're understandably
unhappy--- why should Goodmail get all the business; and why should other
sender-verification services get their mails blocked?--- so AOL and Yahoo
are tapdancing to find a way to make this work. Whatever they come
up with, I'm sure they'll spin it as "service to customers" and "protecting
our customers from evil spammers" rather than as a way for those companies
to make millions of extra dollars in new revenue.
Legitimate large-volume emailers, especially
those with free or low-cost services (like this newsletter) also aren't
happy with the deal. I've heard of none--- not a single one--- who's
planning to go along with the AOL/Yahoo plan.
I'm going to continue to send my newsletter
the same way as always. I'm not a spammer and never have been.
Everyone who gets this newsletter has specifically requested it; and some---
the Plus! subscribers, bless them---
even pay to defray my costs. I am not
going to run up my costs further for the privilege of getting the newsletter
past the AOL and Yahoo filters. And I'm not going to charge you money
so I can transfer it into AOL's or Yahoo's pockets.
If you're an AOL or Yahoo user, I urge you
to check for announcements from the companies on how to manage your filters
and mailboxes under the new system. My newsletters aren't spam; and
I'll send them to any address you specify. But all I can do is send
them: You, and your mail provider, have to let them in.
More broadly, I don't think sender-verification
will reduce spam an iota; and it raises all kinds of questions about the
motives of AOL and Yahoo for using it; and about the wisdom of allowing
self-appointed, for profit "verifiers" to set themselves up as arbiters
of who's legitimate or not.
The Electronic Freedom Foundation--- hardly
a spammer or friend of spammers, agrees that this kind of sender verification
is a very bad idea:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004398.php |