funsec mailing list archives
RE: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail
From: "Gary Funck" <gary () intrepid com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 07:56:33 -0800
[Cited by Chris Barnes, on the procmail list.] L-Soft's reply re: AOL/Yahoo!/Goodmail, http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0602&L=lstsrv-l&T=0&P=429 Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:54:12 +0100 Sender: LISTSERV site administrators' forum From: Eric Thomas <ERIC () VM SE LSOFT COM> Subject: AOL-Goodmail deal: Good Mail or "Goodfellas"? L-Soft has joined the growing number of companies that protest against AOL's recent announcement that it will phase out its Enhanced Whitelist service in June in favour of Goodmail CertifiedEmail, which carries an as yet unspecified per-message fee. In a nutshell, companies like L-Soft get on the AOL whitelist by following good e-mail practices, such as cleaning up dead addresses, making it easy for people to leave mailing lists, and of course not sending any spam. This is all going to be thrown out the window and replaced with the payment of hard currency to Goodmail. People who can afford to pay this fee will have the privilege of reaching AOL subscribers, others will end up in junk folders. Yahoo is expected to follow down the same path. I have nothing against certification as an additional tool in the fight against spam. Knowing that message such and such genuinely comes from its purported sender can help improve the accuracy of your spam filter. I also understand that certification costs money, unless sponsored by the government or by volunteers donating their time to the cause. But I think per-message certification fees make as much sense as per-click SSL certificate fees. I also find that the "rumoured" rates that have been mentioned in some of the press articles are totally out of proportion with the service being provided. The fee is several times what providers currently charge for the service of hosting the mailing list, removing dead addresses, making backups, etc. As an illustration, a typical hobby list would cost on the order of $500-1000 a year. An active list could cost $10k or more a year. This may not be much for the advertisement manager of a large company, not when compared to print adverts, but what about the rest of us? I know L-Soft hosting customers cannot afford the price increase that would be necessary to cover an identification fee of five figures PER DAY. And for many of us, this identification fee is not even an option. To be eligible for Goodmail accreditation, you must "have business headquarters located in the United States or Canada." Foreigners need not bother. You must also "have at least a 6 month mailing history from [the] IP" address from which you are sending your newsletter. This of course makes it very difficult to switch ISPs if you are not satisfied with the one you are using. A new ISP means a new IP address, and Goodmail will then shut you down for "at least 6 months." A nice 'protection' plan for the ISP, but a disaster for customers. Anyway, here is a link to our full press release, which has been sent to major publications today. And I want to salute the courage of the executives at hosting-only companies that have spoken up and protested, knowing full well that they would go out of business in a matter of months were their access to AOL and Yahoo mailboxes to be cut off in retaliation. In the post-Enron era, this kind of corporate courage is very rare indeed. I stand on much firmer ground, as hosting is only a side activity at L-Soft, but I can still imagine what must have gone through their mind before they hit the send button. http://www.lsoft.com/news/aol-goodmail.asp Eric _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- RE: Re[4]: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail, (continued)
- RE: Re[4]: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Larry Seltzer (Feb 09)
- Re: Re[4]: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 09)
- RE: Re[4]: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Larry Seltzer (Feb 09)
- Re[6]: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Pierre Vandevenne (Feb 09)
- Re: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Jeff Kell (Feb 09)
- RE: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Larry Seltzer (Feb 09)
- RE: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Richard M. Smith (Feb 09)
- RE: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Drsolly (Feb 09)
- RE: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Larry Seltzer (Feb 09)
- Re: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 09)
- RE: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Gary Funck (Feb 09)
- RE: Re[2]: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Richard M. Smith (Feb 09)
- Re: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Larry/Spamhaus (Feb 09)
- Re[2]: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Pierre Vandevenne (Feb 08)
- Re[2]: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Drsolly (Feb 08)
- Re: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Tom Van Vleck (Feb 08)
- RE: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Larry Seltzer (Feb 08)
- Re: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Dude VanWinkle (Feb 08)
- RE: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Larry Seltzer (Feb 07)
- RE: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Gary Funck (Feb 07)
- Re: Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 07)