Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
hawleyjr
BeerMod
Posts: 2170
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Jax FL & Spokane WA USA

Postage Is Due for Companies Sending E-Mail

Post by hawleyjr »

Posted in the Times this AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/techn ... ref=slogin
Companies will soon have to buy the electronic equivalent of a postage stamp if they want to be certain that their e-mail will be delivered to many of their customers.
Skip to next paragraph

America Online and Yahoo, two of the world's largest providers of e-mail accounts, are about to start using a system that gives preferential treatment to messages from companies that pay from 1/4 of a cent to a penny each to have them delivered. The senders must promise to contact only people who have agreed to receive their messages, or risk being blocked entirely.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/techn ... ref=slogin

Yahoo and AOL say the new system is a way to restore some order to e-mail, which, because of spam and worries about online scams, has become an increasingly unreliable way for companies to reach their customers, even as online transactions are becoming a crucial part of their businesses.

Oh, and fatten their pocket books at the same time.
User avatar
nickman013
Forum Regular
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:02 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Post by nickman013 »

Well It would help keep out spam, thats good.

1/4 of a penny is nothing, for a dollar you would get 400 emails.

I personally dont like the idea. It would, without a doubt stuff their pockets.
User avatar
Buddha443556
Forum Regular
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 1:51 pm

Post by Buddha443556 »

I personally don't like the idea either. Changes the economy of the entire Internet. If AOL can charge businesses so can every other ISP. Soon it's not just business paying but everyone. Thinking of such chaos gives me a headache.

Crap, I thought I just bought my last stamp this week as I can now pay all my bills online ... my contempt for AOL has reach new levels. Amazing! :evil:
User avatar
m3mn0n
PHP Evangelist
Posts: 3548
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 3:35 pm
Location: Calgary, Canada

Post by m3mn0n »

If you're talking millions of emails per year and even, in a few cases, millions per month, then that's quite a bit of change going to whoever charges for the digital stamp.

I think this is stupid, we just need a new protocol. We don't need to bastardize the current one in the other direction opposite of spam.
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

Its important to note that it isn't applied to "all" email. You can still send an email to yahoo and aol, and it will still get through, and users can still read it.

This system allows certain preferred vendors (read: People who pay) to get preferred status - namely, by default, they won't immediately be treated as bulk/spam when they send hundreds of emails at once.

It might be a great thing (lead to knowing who the spammers are), or it might be a terrible thing (lead to all emails sent to yahoo or aol costing money). Time will tell which direction it goes in.

Regardless, it is their choice how to handle their network. But when they start charging for the same service that is free elsewhere, they will start to lose customers. Its a competitive disadvantage, and one that a vast majority of online companies will not be willing to play along with - resulting in reduced user functionality. (If aol started charging for ALL emails, and ebay says no, then aol users wont be able to get their ebay emails - and will switch providers to find someone that will).

Its market forces at work, and in this case, the market has plenty of competition, so the changes will likely not deeply impact customers for long.

I've got no beef with it, at least in its current implementation.
User avatar
Chris Corbyn
Breakbeat Nuttzer
Posts: 13098
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Chris Corbyn »

It'd be cheaper to set up their own email servers in the long run and just send mail from those.

It's clearly not the spam issue that's at the heart of this, it's a way to make some dollar.

Use a decent spam filter and you'll see next to no junk anyway... and if anyone did want to spam after this pay-scheme is implemented I'm sure they quite simply would do so using their own software.
josh
DevNet Master
Posts: 4872
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:23 pm
Location: Palm beach, Florida

Post by josh »

And what happens when a spammer IP spoofs as a "trusted" sender? The spam goes straight to the user's inbox and the company that is paying becomes victimized along with the user while AOL gets payed to deliver more spam?
timvw
DevNet Master
Posts: 4897
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:11 pm
Location: Leuven, Belgium

Post by timvw »

Probably the paying companies will have to authenticate (thinking certficates and public/private keys here) when they talk with the SMTP(Extended) server...
josh
DevNet Master
Posts: 4872
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:23 pm
Location: Palm beach, Florida

Post by josh »

Very clever

(not really I'm just slow)
User avatar
Maugrim_The_Reaper
DevNet Master
Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
Location: Ireland

Post by Maugrim_The_Reaper »

Won't impact anyone unless they choose to pay - as Roja says there's too much competition and ingrained user experience to force a pay regime for all emails. I just hope they make that rule about the user expecting emails concrete - it's be nice if they required the user to opt-in (rather than being opted-in by default) but I guess that's be clutching at smoke...;)
User avatar
Moocat
Forum Contributor
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:28 am
Location: USA

Post by Moocat »

Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:Won't impact anyone unless they choose to pay - as Roja says there's too much competition and ingrained user experience to force a pay regime for all emails. I just hope they make that rule about the user expecting emails concrete - it's be nice if they required the user to opt-in (rather than being opted-in by default) but I guess that's be clutching at smoke...;)
There was a whiff of smoke for the same type of function in AT&T's lines for servers (such as Google) where they'd offer a premium service for higher quality (not neccesarily more) bandwidth and packet routing. It's like D3, all smoke and mirrors until I see something concrete :)
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

Moocat wrote:There was a whiff of smoke for the same type of function in AT&T's lines for servers (such as Google) where they'd offer a premium service for higher quality (not neccesarily more) bandwidth and packet routing. It's like D3, all smoke and mirrors until I see something concrete :)
That proposal and desire actually worries me a little bit more.

Unfortunately, there will almost always be *someone* willing to pay to get special treatment. As a result, if AT&T (and other backbone providers) start selling preferred routes to people, eventually anyone NOT on a preferred route will be at a disadvantage. The nice thing is that like the protection racket, it doesn't work very well until you have a majority of people paying, and getting to a majority from zero is tough.

Thankfully, many providers are already standing firm against it (Google for example), as they should. However, long-term, that desire worries me. It could definitely ruin the internet as it exists today.
Grim...
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1445
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:32 am
Location: London, UK

Post by Grim... »

Roja wrote:It could definitely ruin the internet as it exists today.
And the internet as it exists today ruined the internet that existed before it...

</devil's advocate>
Roja
Tutorials Group
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:30 pm

Post by Roja »

Grim... wrote:
Roja wrote:It could definitely ruin the internet as it exists today.
And the internet as it exists today ruined the internet that existed before it...

</devil's advocate>
I do agree with that! Not neccesarily saying the next result would be worse.. I just suspect it would be. :)
Post Reply