The Goodmail Debate( old news - 03:30PM Wednesday Jun 13 2007) tags: business · spam · mailLast year when AOL and Yahoo announced they'd be using Goodmail's CertifiedEmail solution, which charges mass mailers (and non-profits) a small surcharge to bypass spam filters, there was significant outrage. Last week, Verizon, Comcast, Cox and Time Warner Cable implemented the system, and so far there's a general lack of concern, at least judging from the newswires. ISPs split the revenue with Goodmail 50/50, creating an instantaneous new revenue stream for themselves -- though, of course, their marketing for the new plan focuses on how the deal is really about helping consumers. WebPro News notes that the deal immediately gives Goodmail a 65% market inbox penetration, a number that jumps to 85% should Microsoft get on board. Google last year stated they wouldn't be playing along: "Gmail does not accept payment to bypass its filters, nor are there plans to charge senders to reach Gmail users."Bennett Haselton at Slashdot pens one of the first substantive criticisms of the plan we've seen since last week's news: "If I could ask one serious question of anyone who was defending pay-per-email, or sitting on the fence about it, this would be it: Suppose you sent an extremely urgent e-mail to your doctor or your lawyer, who for the sake of argument you're not able to reach by phone. The recipient's ISP owner happens to see the message before the user retrieves it, and realizes how urgently you need to get it through. So he moves it to the recipient's 'spam' folder, and then calls you up and says: pay me $1,000 to move it to the recipient's inbox, or they'll never see it.
Does the ISP have the right to do that? If not, why not?" Your thoughts?
Related:- AOL, Yahoo to Revamp Spam Attack
- Coalition Assaults AOL's 'E-mail Tax'
- AOL Backs Off 'E-mail Tax'
- Four Major ISPs To Use 'CertifiedEmail'
- Verizon Deploys 'Certified Email'
- New AT&T Filters Eating Legit E-mail
- Washington Post Kills Major Spam, Child Porn Pit
- As Expected, Huge Spam Reduction To Be Short Lived
|
page: 1 · 2  |
 |  | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: paying to bypass filters is just saying... I want some $ too Now apply the same idea to all content, and boom, you have the network neutrality debate. | |
| | Megladon13
join:2003-09-05
Minneapolis, MN | I dont see what the debate is, if you dont like the pratice, do what alot of people have done and get an online mail such as gmail. Google thus far seems to be above such things. | |
| 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
 ·Embarq
| The doctor analogy That analogy is bad because that is not the situation we are in. It's not a matter of users receiving critical mail. It's about users receiving junk mail or not. The idea that you can pay to have your junk mail placed in customer's boxes, and that customer's shouldn't be upset is insane. If a doctor sends me an urgent letter via e-mail I'm finding another doctor and then suing. | |
| | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: The doctor analogy I agree. Urgent information from a doctor had better not be sent through email to begin with.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | 
raydog1
Feel Secure
Premium
join:2003-07-10
La Vergne, TN
edit:
June 13th, @02:07PM
| Keep in mind "extremely urgent e-mail" doesn't have to mean "Biopsy Results." It could mean, "document you need to read/sign ASAP" and you don't have quick access to fax machine.
Edit: cause i can't speel | |
| | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| Re: The doctor analogy If you are receiving professional e-mail then you and your company should be using a professional web hosting service.
Again, this is about spammer being allowed to spam you, not about individuals being able to e-mail each other.
And if it was about individuals contacting each other, I certainly would not want to being using e-mail server from an ISP that requires those who wish to send me legitimate e-mails to pay them money.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
| | | |
raydog1
Feel Secure
Premium
join:2003-07-10
La Vergne, TN
| Re: The doctor analogy "If you are receiving professional e-mail then you and your company should be using a professional web hosting service."
Not if you can't afford it or are trying to save time. It wouldn't have been uncommon for me in my social work days to do something like this from home for a document that may have been as simple as a food stamp application. Faster to do it over email rather than driving to their home. A day later (if I did it in person) could result in a week delay in the client receiving their stamps depending on the time of week/month/year. If that email didn't get to them, then you have another delay. And before you say, "They need food stamps but have internet service???" It's not uncommon at all.
All I'm saying is the argument is valid. This isn't just an analogy. It actually happens in the real world. | |
| | | | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| Re: The doctor analogy So you think that you should have to pay to have your legitimate mail go through? Again, if my contacts have to pay a premium to send me e-mail then I'm finding a new e-mail provider.
And also, again, this is not about legitimate contacts, this is about allowing spammers to pay a premium to spam their customers. | |
| | | | | |
raydog1
Feel Secure
Premium
join:2003-07-10
La Vergne, TN
| Re: The doctor analogy I don't agree with this at all. It just seems like another revenue stream. And what happens if my agency's emails were being blocked by these filters? Does it take longer to prove that I'm not a spammer or to pay the fee? In the above case, my agency may need to send emails quickly. If they call one of these ISPs, will the rep be faster to say "I'll take you out of the filter right now" or "Well, if you just pay the fee I can pass your emails through now. Otherwise it'll take 4-6 weeks to investigate and resolve this"? I find nothing good about it. | |
| | | | | | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| Re: The doctor analogy Well, if these ISPs were working for the customers they would have a real system in tact for people to contact to let them know that their spam filters are producing a false positive and let them investigate. Because customer satisfaction is low on the todo list they resort to "just pay us some money and we'll clear it, regardless of what it is." | |
| | | | | | | |
raydog1
Feel Secure
Premium
join:2003-07-10
La Vergne, TN
| Re: The doctor analogy Exactly. If my email landed in a client's junk box, they would probably sit there all day long checking the inbox and cursing my name for letting them down. Most people people won't go through the trouble of calling their ISPs and even if they do, it'll probably be passed along to nobody. | |
| | | | 
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, & Pr..
edit:
June 13th, @07:06PM
| said by Maxo  :Again, this is about spammer being allowed to spam you, not about individuals being able to e-mail each other. Up close, that's what it's about at this moment. Take a step back, and it's about ISP's accepting money from a third party to prioritize delivery of e-mails to their already-paying customers.
Currently they're prioritizing for bulk-mail senders ("you can go straight through without running the spam filter gauntlet"). Once they can do this, they can certainly prioritize for other groups/individuals as well if they choose. And they can certainly impede non-prioritized mail if they choose as well, as someone else already noted:
said by TK Junk Mail :There is potential for abuse, as ISP's tighten spam filters to such a degree that most big businesses will pay the fee. But it will cut down on most spam due to the tightened ISP spam filters. --
Sure, that'll work.. | |
| | | | | | | 
GoodyearMark
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Goodyear, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: The doctor analogy said by en102 :Yeah - I don't think that the general scenario was valid. Also, if anything is 'extremely urgent' (i.e. Escrow Documents), should be followed up with a phone call, etc. Standard messages like 'your bill is ready for review', is more of a notification. I suspect that since there is a general class of 'bulk mail' for junk mail at home, people think that a similar class should be created for Email. Escrow documents? Have you ever purchased real estate? I have, and those documents were always sent via overnight mail, not the Internet.
--
Got a V3 or a V3i or an L7? Want to get the most out of them? Check out my sites »hacktheV3.com and »hacktheV3i.com and »hacktheL7.com
| |
| | | | | | AMDonUT2004
join:2006-06-12
Bedford, VA
| I see it like this so there going to charge us for filters to our email, next with vista they are going to start charging us to do updates to our computers.. what's next? charging people for a new email accounts maybe?  | |
| | | | | 
BKuhl
join:1999-09-06
Lodi, NJ
| Re: I see it like this said by TK Junk Mail :Unless you are a business sending out bulk email to potential customers(AKA Spam), YOU are not going to pay anything. So, I'm subscribed to multiple free newsletters. I can assume I will no longer be able to receive them?
To the ISP they have no way of determining the difference between a popular newsletter and a common spam message...
--
-BKuhl
| |
| | | | MJRudzik
join:2002-01-13
Independence, MO
·Speakeasy
| Re: I see it like this said by BKuhl :So, I'm subscribed to multiple free newsletters. I can assume I will no longer be able to receive them? To the ISP they have no way of determining the difference between a popular newsletter and a common spam message... No they will be handled by your existing spam filters (or not if you have allowed the sender) as they are today. Goodmail simply allows the bypass of the filter. | |
| | 
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
·Comcast
| I don't get it... I pay for ISP service which includes SPAM filtering.
Someone who wants to send SPAM pays the ISP to bypass the SPAM filter.
I get part of that payment, right? No, I just get the SPAM.
How long until my ISP offers a service that will filter the SPAM that bypassed the SPAM filter?
And so on... | |
| 
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Crazy ... but faulty analogy The idea of allowing spammers to "buypass" ISPs spamfilters is disgraceful. If Television stations are willing to accept "infomercials" for such wonderfully physiologically impossibilities like the products that are "guaranteed to enlarge that certain part of the mail anatomy", then you can be sure that ISPs will happily accept money for letting spam for these products through as well.
The analogy presented is flawed though ... It makes the assumption that any mail that is tagged by the filter as "Spam" will be automatically trashed and sets that up as a straw man that implies this to be the fault of goodmail. The reality is that even without goodmail, if the mail from say your doctor looks like spam, then it's going to be tagged as such today and dealt with by whatever rules you or your ISP uses now.
Goodmail doesn't change your ISP's current mail handling except to allow spammers to buy a "pink slip contract" whitelisting their mail. If you or your ISP junk spam unseen today, it won't change with goodmail. | |
| Cyber2lz
join:2001-11-15
Odessa, FL
 ·Verizon FIOS
·RoadRunner Cable
| Who uses the ISP's mail servers anyway??????
Half the time they are slow and the other half they are clogged with SPAM. Or is that the same thing, 
Geesh !
--
The Light Pipe is the Right Pipe !!! | |
| 
braden
join:2001-12-12
Aliso Viejo, CA
| Barriers to Entry The internet is great, because in economic terms, there are very low barriers to entry. If I want to setup a company, and e-mail (directly, with OPT-IN clients) I can do so with very little outlay of cash. I buy some hosting space and setup e-mail and I'm ready to go.
Now, we all know spam filters are aggressive. However, something tells me that now that ISPs have a new revenue stream, that spam filters are going to get a lot more aggressive to help drive more revenue. So, basically, the barriers to entry get higher. If I want to get past the new insane spam filters, now I have to pay. Cost of doing business on the internet goes up, and less and less innovative business ideas see the light of day.
Welcome to the beginning of the slippery slope. | |
| | MJRudzik
join:2002-01-13
Independence, MO
·Speakeasy
edit:
June 13th, @02:57PM
| Re: Barriers to Entry said by braden :The internet is great, because in economic terms, there are very low barriers to entry. If I want to setup a company, and e-mail (directly, with OPT-IN clients) I can do so with very little outlay of cash. Yeah this is exactly the problem. I realize you state with opt in but opt in is often mis-defined by businesses. My simply having done business with a company is not my opting in to being contacted by the company outside the scope of the specific transaction. The low cost of internet businesses makes spam too tempting to too many.
said by braden :Now, we all know spam filters are aggressive. ... spam filters are going to get a lot more aggressive ..If I want to get past the new insane spam filters, now I have to pay. Good less junk for me to sort out. No empathy from me for busineses that get themselves caught in spam filters.
said by braden :Cost of doing business on the internet goes up, and less and less innovative business ideas see the light of day. If a business is so innovative then they can be innovative with their financing too. If they can't figure it out then they must not be that innovative. Its 'survival of the fittest' not 'I shouldn't have to work harder and smarter than my competition'. | |
| | |
braden
join:2001-12-12
Aliso Viejo, CA
| Re: Barriers to Entry Well, I guess it really boils down to how you see the internet playing a role in business and publishing. I see it as the role it's been playing as a disruptive technology that allows ideas and businesses that would not have the capital (social or financial) to see the light of day. Television is a great example of the opposite of this. It has an extremely high barrier to entry. I can't get on TV and say what I want, or sell a product that I just invented with a huge expenditure.
I'm assuming (please correct me if not) that you believe this is a good thing. Let the market decide? Well, with TV being a great example, a small handful of companies decide what gets aired as commentary or commercial. I don't think this is the way the internet should be run. But again, it's how you see it.  | |
| | | | MJRudzik
join:2002-01-13
Independence, MO
·Speakeasy
| Re: Barriers to Entry said by braden :Well, I guess it really boils down to how you see the internet playing a role in business and publishing. I see it as the role it's been playing as a disruptive technology that allows ideas and businesses that would not have the capital (social or financial) to see the light of day. Yes it does. I agree that the internet is a disruptive technology, both to our concepts of business and the public forum. See the internet cannot and should not be squeezed into one box or the other. Unfortunately it is being pushed almost entirely into business. What I stated in my previous post applies to companies doing business on the internet which is the arena to which the goodlink debate belongs. As a public forum it should be open and free which other than the fee for access it is. And the goodlink debate does not apply to discussion of Public forum.
So people having open discussions and public forums on the internet free without barriers. Businesses trying to make a buck on the internet, let the market decide. The weak will die and the strong will survive. | |
| | | 
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL | I think the poster was meaning that if you start up a business with a newsletter kind of deal.
Also, certain forums and other sites that send email in bulk to subscribers, etc. | |
| 
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL | Gmail Thank God for Gmail or better yet buy your own domain and setup your own mail with imap and roundcube. | |
| |
GoodyearMark
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Goodyear, AZ
·Cox HSI
| Re: Gmail said by XBL2009 :Thank God for Gmail or better yet buy your own domain and setup your own mail with imap and roundcube. +1. Unfortunately most people are too stupid to figure this out or are too cheap to implement it.
--
Got a V3 or a V3i or an L7? Want to get the most out of them? Check out my sites »hacktheV3.com and »hacktheV3i.com and »hacktheL7.com
| |
| 
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17
| hrmm... pay me to read my emails would make me happy give the customer a pct and they'll be happy use the extra revenue to cut prices maybe... but i can see why gmail does not need to join in on this as you type your emails and gmail auto saves what your typing the adds are updated in real time to reflect the keys words you are typing. | |
| MJRudzik
join:2002-01-13
Independence, MO
·Speakeasy
| I think Goodmail is on the right track Personally I don't understand all the rhetoric surrounding this. Nobody is blocking anything that isn't already blocked today. Goodmail sells senders the opportunity to be marked as certified and bypass the spam filters of participants. If a sender doesn't purchase the certfied delivery so be it. They have the same delivery system as before. A lot of people are seeming to imply that a message getting caught in a spam filter is new after the implementation of Goodmail. I don't know about you but I have control of my filters. Some things get caught and others get through.
Companies should pay more to advertise via email. They should also pay advertise via snail mail, and by telephone too. Every time I get a telemarketing call I should be able to say "this call will cost $3.99 per minute" but that is OT. Companies are lazy and know that its easier and cheaper th get me to buy from them again so they harass me after every purchase. But they offshore the support department to some non English speaking Indian and act like i bugging them when i need help with their broken down junk. I get the "sorry we couldn't fix that. Would you like to buy some other piece of our broken junk" line all too often. Go find a new customer instead of trying to get me to buy things. If I need it i will seek you out.
It slightly bothers me that some one can buy their way past the spam filter but since it will be specially marked then i can set a rule to look for that and deal with it appropriately. | |
| | old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: I think Goodmail is on the right track said by MJRudzik : Goodmail sells senders the opportunity to be marked as certified and bypass the spam filters of participants. And why should anyone trust Goodmail to verify that the senders are not spammers? Are they really likely to turn down the money from spammers? HA! I think not. As soon as people find that Goodmail allows spammers in, it will be worthless. | |
| |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| The big deal is that not will legit companies "buypass" the spam filters, scammers will too ... just like they're willing to spend money on infomercials like Extenze.
And for many people SPAM is simply unsolicited email ... it doesn't matter WHO it comes from, and so, the idea that a company like say Sony (who had a bout of spamming a few years back) can "buypass" the spam filters makes it none the less acceptable to the end user. | |
| | | MJRudzik
join:2002-01-13
Independence, MO
·Speakeasy
| Re: I think Goodmail is on the right track QUOTE= old_wiz_60 ]said by MJRudzik : And why should anyone trust Goodmail to verify that the senders are not spammers? As soon as people find that Goodmail allows spammers in, it will be worthless. said by sbrook :The big deal is that not will legit companies "buypass" the spam filters, scammers will too ... just like they're willing to spend money on infomercials like Extenze. My response is So What? seriously though on Goodmail's own web site it states clearly that any sender that gets too many reports of sending unwanted email will loose their sender account. Also, Goodmail stamps the emails so that they are easily identifiable so set a rule to identify and delete them. Done. No spam. Or use an email client and your own filters that you control! No filter is 100% anyway. multi-layred solutions are always best when it comes to any security situation. So it is in Goodmail's best interest to keep it clean of spammers. But who cares if a few things get through. there are many automated ways to keep from actually seeing the Certified mails. | |
| | | |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | Re: I think Goodmail is on the right track You said it right there ... no filtering mechanism is 100% ... and that is what makes goodmail nothing more than a cashgrab. | |
| | 
disconnected
@snet.net | Oh great... I can just imagine the Russian and Chinese spammers using stolen credit card info to buy a pass through these spam filters. More Russian Viagra ads. Just great. | |
|
DeeplyShrouded
@comcast.net
| Yahoo Mail IMPOSSIBLE! Yahoo's free mail service is nothing but a spam bucket
these days. 15 filters? Spammers bypass them in a matter
of moments.
I took the time to write Yahoo Customer Care asking if it
were possible to filter spam by using part of an IP address.
The first reply pointed me to the standard help page.
The second reply wanted more information.
The third reply wanted to know what section of Yahoo I was using.
The fourth reply wanted my account information.
Here in all its glory is their 5th reply:
Thank you for writing to Yahoo! Mail.
We have received your mail and are sorry to say that your issue is not
clear to us till yet.
In order to deal with your question/problem in the most efficient
manner, we are requesting a more detailed explanation of the problem as
well as any other relevant information, such as the Yahoo! property
(including Yahoo! Chat, Yahoo! Games, Yahoo Mail, My Yahoo etc.) and/or
fields used.
We look forward to providing you with a solution as soon as possible.
Have a wonderful day ahead!
Thank you again for contacting Yahoo! Mail.
Regards,
Karen
Yahoo! Customer Care
Amazing isn't it? The "person" who replied apparently
does not use English as a native language, appears to
not even read my question and has no technical knowledge.
So, simple question again, CAN I FILTER BY ALL OR PARTIAL
IP ADDRESS OR NOT?
Since Yahoo insists on dragging its feet regarding this
issue, perhaps a bit of public exposure will help move
things along....
--Deeply Shrouded & Quiet
--Central Control! D-Dial #49 | |
| 
MemphisPCGuy
Senior Systems Engineer
Premium
join:2004-05-09
Memphis, TN | Do they sell the spammers their client list? How much more do they pay to just have the ISP spam ALL their clients instead of just letting the addresses on the spammers list through?
--
»www.memphispcguy.com | |
| 
SYNACK
Just Firewall It
Premium,Mod
join:2001-03-05
Venice, CA
·Comcast Formerly ..
Host:
Networking
Virtual Private Ne..
Netgear
ZyXEL
| This should be free Well, lets see:
• Yes, we have a spam problem.
• major ISPs have implemented filters to weed out spam
• the filters are not perfect and once in a while a legitimate e-mail ends up in the spam trap.
• instead of correcting the filters that this does not happen, companies can now bribe their way past the filters to make sure they get through.
This sounds like extortion and something the mafia would do! Most likely, once a number of companies are paying the bribe, the ISP will tighten the filters to make sure all unpaid, but legitimate e-mails get suddenly trapped. Now pay up or else! 
In the long run, this business model will not last. Hopefully, no companies will sign up.
Google is correct here! | |
| | 
spamd
Premium
join:2001-04-22
Rockford, IL
·Insight Communicat..
edit:
June 13th, @11:53PM
| Re: This should be free said by SYNACK :Well, lets see: • Yes, we have a spam problem. • major ISPs have implemented filters to weed out spam • the filters are not perfect and once in a while a legitimate e-mail ends up in the spam trap. • instead of correcting the filters that this does not happen, companies can now bribe their way past the filters to make sure they get through. This sounds like extortion and something the mafia would do! Most likely, once a number of companies are paying the bribe, the ISP will tighten the filters to make sure all unpaid, but legitimate e-mails get suddenly trapped. Now pay up or else! In the long run, this business model will not last. Hopefully, no companies will sign up. Google is correct here! Yes, the Mafia.
Tony from Sopranos said it best.
"You don't shit where you eat. And you really don't shit where I eat."
Who Said It: Tony, to Benny after Artie beat up Benny for stealing credit cards from Vesuvio's
Episode: Season 6, Episode 7: "Luxury Lounge"
Tony was understandably annoyed with Benny, who really should have thought twice about stealing from the boss's friend.
That's the way I see it. All the ISP's taking a shit on it's customers. BTW what ever happened to the Spam laws here. Doesn't this mean the ISP's are contributing to spam?? Doesn't anyone remember this??
So let me get this straight. If Soloway paid Goodmail then his spam would get through?
I don't get it. Why are we throwing some one in jail. But letting others do what he did by simply paying up to allow this.
--
When everything is coming your way, you are in the wrong lane. | |
| pcause
join:2000-07-13
Burlington, MA
| Comments miss what Goodmail really does Many of these comments completely miss what Goodmail actually is / does.
The doctor analogy is just inflammatory crap! Email enters the ISP system as it normally would and gets delivered to your mailbox as it normally would for any email that isn't Goodmail signed. NOTHING CHANGES wrt how things work now.
Goodmail requires that mailers follow certain rules to be able to send certified email. For example, you have to have an opt in, have few/no complaints, etc. Transactional mail is allowed (confirmation of a purchase, account statement,etc). Goodmail allows the ISP to verify that the mail is from the sender, that the sender is a legitimate business who follows certain rules and then delivers to the Inbox. Further, the ISP will enable images and HTML, so that the sender can send you something that is attractive and useful. There is no risk that the mail is phishing, has malicious code, etc.
In the end, what they are doing is having the folks who want to send you fancy emails, pay for the work to be sure that the ISPs can differentiate between "safe" senders of rich messages and the rest of the mail. Isn't is best to have the people who want to use an advanced capability to reach you pay for the extra work involved? And, Goodmail has a reduced or free offer for non-profits. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | charing non-profits? tsk tsk... | |
| VerizonCynic
www.LAAG.us
join:2006-10-25
Lakewood, CA
·Verizon Online DSL
|  domain keys??
I like domain keys as the process is simple. Identify who you are so we can block you if we dont like you. I also like that gmail is saying no to goodmail. Good for them and me.
Just because you pay to send spam to me does not mean I want it. It will be just as useless as the spam I get now.
If we want email to be more reliable than faxes and the post office we better start getting serious about domain keys.
Oh by the way I am having a hard time telling junk postal mail from the real thing now too thanks to the "postal mail spammers". | |
| |
DeeplyShrouded
@comcast.net
| Re: domain keys?? Well, all I know is, Yahoo can't even answer a simple question.
I look at it like telemarketers.
I pay for my phone service, when telemarketers pay for my
phone service, then they can call me all they want.
When they pay for my time, then I'll answer.
Yahoo supposedly uses domain keys, and the spam bucket
still gets 80-100 messages a day.
This tells me that domain keys are useless in fighting
the spam problem.
The only way I can see fighting spam effectively is
by letting each user ban by domain, ip address range, or
individual ip address.
Granted it will be hell for those with dynamic ip addresses
but unless spammers are made to pay, the spam problem will
continue.
Spammers send out millions of messages, how many does the
average user send out in a single 24 hour period?
It IS a difficult problem to solve, but that's only because
no one is working on the problem together, everyone wants
to do their own thing.
Is there a free email service that will allow filters by
IP address?
--Deeply Shrouded & Quiet
--Central Control! D-Dial #49 | |
| 
wedgedkitty
join:2006-01-10
Quincy, MA
·Comcast
| Don't like the sound of this... I won't jump into a debate of whether this makes business sense or if it would be an effective spam-killer, but I will note this likely screws me over if I were to move to Verizon should FiOS ever came to my neighborhood.
I personally subscribe to mailing lists/email newsletters of several overseas vendors. I highly doubt any of these vendors is interested in paying a fee to ensure their newsletters get to me, which means having to rely on other mail accounts. I know Gmail and other services offer plenty of free accounts these days, but there are certain types of transactions that I prefer to consolidate and keep in a centralized email file, and it sounds like this potentially would not be an option under Verizon. From my perspective, it's making things more difficult for a customer for a more expensive, supposedly premium service offering. *sigh* | |
| | VerizonCynic
www.LAAG.us
join:2006-10-25
Lakewood, CA | Re: Don't like the sound of this... Trust me I have verizon. Get domain mail from gmail and make your life better. I hate verizons mail. Google lets me pop 3 for free or use the web. Or both at the same time | |
| | |
wedgedkitty
join:2006-01-10
Quincy, MA
·Comcast
| Re: Don't like the sound of this... I do have several domain mail accounts, gmail included, but again for certain transactions, I prefer to have them filtered from other emails, and I've been relying on my ISP's email to do that.
I used to have Verizon, albeit DSL, and their email never gave me problems (though I've read the horror stories). Either way, it's just another sign that Verizon email is clearly not going to work for me. | |
| | | | VerizonCynic
www.LAAG.us
join:2006-10-25
Lakewood, CA
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Don't like the sound of this... I only use domain mail now as I want total control over my email. Verizon has screwed me and lied to me on transferring email over to new accts. they still dont do it. I have tried twice. If you rely on any email domain you dont own (ie: me@myowndomain.com)and you are using it commercially get ready to get screwed. You have been warned. | |
| | | | |
wedgedkitty
join:2006-01-10
Quincy, MA
·Comcast
| Re: Don't like the sound of this... Ah well, there's the rub. When I switched ISPs (twice) I never bothered to ask them to transfer my accounts. I personally emailed all my important docs to my gmail accounts and made sure I had saved to my PC any archives I wanted to keep, changed the contact email for my important vendors, and emailed my friends beforehand not to send any email to that account. Nothing beats doing it yourself to make sure it's done the way you want. | |
| |
|
|
