|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Feb 08, 2006 4:39 pm |
|
re: The Email Postage Stamp possibility |
lisa micklin
| |
Hi Denise and all,
Thanks for bringing this up. I've been watching this issue develop while nursing a flu, hoping that the flu had me hallucinating the whole shabang! Now that I'm down to a stuffy head and the sniffles, I'm in awe that it wasn't just a fever induced dream!
For those who haven't yet heard about the AOL/Yahoo/Goodmail fiasco, here's my mundane understanding and translation of the situation:
~ ClikZ stated that AOL (and eventually Yahoo) would be dissolving its "enhanced whitelist" program for bulk senders and replacing it with the paid Goodmail system. Meaning that senders would have to pay, yes $$$, to deliver email with functional links and images to AOL subscribers.
~ The current "enhanced whitelist" program that AOL uses to determine deliverability is based on a sender's IP history: how many spam complaints, bounces, etc. against the sending IP. For instance, EZezine is on this enhanced whitelist because we get very few complaints from subscribers and we send to only legit addresses etc. It's a system that works for the most part.
~ It later was revealed that AOL will not discontinue the "enhanced whitelist" program, but is suggesting that senders also use the paid Goodmail solution, which would add a note to the header that the sender is part of this program.
~ The verdict is still out on whether or not this paid program will become mandatory.
For a rapid history of the whole fiasco please check out Email Universe's articles at http://tinyurl.com/859wh and at http://tinyurl.com/8cjn9
Now for my thoughts:
This is insane. Think of it, you're a small or newbie ezine publisher and suddenly you have to PAY to deliver to AOL subscribers. Give me a break.
Personally, I'd have no problem dropping my AOL subscribers to my ezines and adding a script to my subscription form that will not accept AOL addresses with a message suggesting that the potential sub signup with a different address. AOL subs comprise a very small portion of my lists. However for other publishers this may not be the case so it may not be a good solution for all.
I understand the need to curtail spam. I understand it deeply every morning when I download my email. However, a pay to deliver model is not the answer. Spammers will still find a way, and may even pay the fees requested.
What the industry truly needs are STANDARDS. Not proprietary authentications (SPF) that vary from one incoming ISP to another. Just think of the size of your email headers if you were to attempt to abide by every SPF policy available. It would be ludicrous. The current responsive AOL "enhanced whitelist" is pretty stable. In fact if more ISPs subscribed to the same practice with the same parameters, it could truly set an industry standard.
Assuming industry standards do get set, the next or concurrent step would be to find a standard to test for spoofed IP addresses. For instance EZezine's IPs are all in good standing. Yet a spammer could spoof any of our IP addresses and ride our standing and get us off of the whitelist. This is a problem area that must be targeted in order to see any effective change.
So, as I see it, I'm not willing to pay to deliver to AOL. Or Yahoo. Or any other incoming mail server.
How about the rest of you? What are your thoughts on this situation?Private Reply to lisa micklin (new win) |
|
| |
|
