Interesting People mailing list archives
Independent verification of email delivery
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:34:16 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: Carl Malamud <carl () media org> Date: March 23, 2006 1:11:35 PM EST To: dave () farber net Subject: Independent verification of email delivery Dear Dave - I'd like to step into the AOL/Goodmail/EFF/... controversy with my two cents. First, some disclosure and background: 1. My employer, the Center for American Progress, is a signatory to the DearAOL petition. 2. I have no financial stake in any of the parties involved: I don't advise or invest in any of the spam-fighting solutions or indeed in any companies in the Internet industry. 3. I have studied the spam issue extensively, having written 3 RFCs on the topic with a proposed (but not widely adopted :) set of mechanisms. The RFCs are 3865, 4095, and 4096. It appears to me that the controversy surrounding the DearAOL campaign is one of perceptions. Over 500 organizations are concerned enough about the issue of email delivery that they signed the petition. Regardless of the details, if such a large population is worried, the issue needs to be addressed. There appear to be some inter-related concerns: 1. The coalition doesn't like the fact that AOL takes a cut of the Goodmail action. They argue that this is the beginning of a slipperyslope towards discrimination for a broad class of services. For example, if AOL can charge bulk e-mailers money for Goodmail, why couldn't EarthLink
charge value-added providers, such as AOL, for GoodPackets? At issue is the question of differential charges for differential service, with the potential for descending into giving significantly worse service than is now available, for some set of users. 2. On the other hand, I think it is unrealistic to think a publicly traded company will publicly agree to automatically forgo revenue opportunities. This is one of those issues where a broader public interest is at stake, but one would not expect a profit-maximizing private actor, particularly one with real challenges to their existing revenue base, to take unilateral action.3. One of the core issues seems to be, whether or not Goodmail exists, if mail for non-profits will continue to be delivered in a non- discriminatory
fashion. There are two sides to this issue. On the one hand, AOL has announced a program that says non-profits will always get their email through: http://press.aol.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=944§ion_id=14 On the other hand, Cindy Cohen states: "I'm skeptical of AOL's claims that nothing will change for senders who don't choose Goodmail. My concern is also based on my very real experience with Bonded Sender." For me, this comes down to a battle of perceptions. And, living in Washington, one of the things I've learned is that when many people think there is an issue, it *is* an issue. One can argue all one wants about the details, but the bottom line is that if that many people are concerned there is, at the very least, a lack of communication. Since this all comes down to trust, I've had a series of calls with some of the players involved to try and understand the perceptions andmis-perceptions. And, while not speaking for any of the parties involved,
I would like to propose at least one possible solution: an independent assessment service of email delivery patterns among many ISPs. Here is how it might work: 1. Get some email-sending capability from a variety of representative non-profits (e.g., get some non-profits to allow a relay capability). 2. Obtain or confirm certification from the various reputation services. 3. Get a variety of email addresses on ISPs such as AOL. 4. Send lots of email from (1) to (3). 5. Analyze deliverability statistics and Publish the results. What I am proposing here is an independent Underwriters Laboratory style model that assesses basic email deliverability. There are a variety of trusted groups on the net that would be capable of providing such a service. Such a FairMail Verification service might be funded by the ISPs in return for a "Monitored by FairMail" certification. Or, it might be funded by an industry trade association. I'd be more than happy to hear from folks on this issue. It is just one possible proposed solution and I don't speak for any of the parties involved. Regards, Carl Malamud Chief Technology Officer Center for American Progress (speaking for himself, not the Center, AOL, EFF, or Goodmail) ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- Independent verification of email delivery David Farber (Mar 23)