On MovieTome: The 10 worst movies of 2009 so far!
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 14 of 14:
« Previous
A different take on email vetting
This may seem incongruous, coming from the author of the infamous 'Goodfellas' press release, but I am in favor of a vetting system, with one caveat: there must be a choice of providers, with an open standard to foster competition and keep prices down.

For some e-marketers, price may not be an issue, because they are already paying for deliverability services that may (or may not) become redundant if Goodmail?s model becomes widely adopted. Still, why pay more than you have to? And, for many people, the fees are prohibitive.

My company, L-Soft, runs a modest ESP operation on the side of its software licensing business. The rumored Goodmail fees are several times what we charge customers today. I could be paying Goodmail as much as 15 million dollars a year to verify my reputation! I understand that this could make business sense for some senders. Nevertheless, this fee level is so obviously disconnected from actual costs that it cries for the introduction of competition.

And fees are not the only issue. Goodmail only do business with companies headquartered in the USA, which means US companies will have preferential access to foreign AOL mailboxes. I expect that Goodmail and AOL will spend quite a bit of time in foreign courts.

I see a tremendous potential for a new e-mail industry, let?s call it vetting. Businesses would be able to earn preferential treatment in spam filters, based on ?trust ratings? assigned by vetting companies. Open standards and competition would keep prices around 3-4 figures per year. Volunteer-run or sponsored vetting services would certify charities. The low fee would allow almost every legitimate message to bypass spam filters, which could then become more aggressive. Spammers would see their ROI drop dramatically and this could be the beginning of the end for spam. What?s not to like?

Eric Thomas,
Founder and CEO, L-Soft
Posted by: Eric Thomas   Posted on: 02/17/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

ePostage, the death of e-mail as we know it!  An_Axe_to_Grind | 02/13/06
Self-contradictory  tic swayback | 02/13/06
What I'd like to see is....  dragontiger | 02/13/06
Oh, man. This truly sucks...  BitTwiddler | 02/13/06
Exactly why I run my own Mail Server.  Suicida| | 02/13/06
I run ClarkConnect 3.2  xkmail | 02/13/06
Hmmmmm  DarbyOhara | 02/14/06
Spam = unwanted email adverts  Nigel Johnstone | 02/13/06
Isn't this what Habeas tried to do?  UncleBubba | 02/13/06
As long as it is a level playing field  xkmail | 02/13/06
Ah, "level the playing field" - What an idea!  lifestooshort | 02/14/06
correction method  Update victim | 02/14/06
Unintended (?) consequence  NobodyHome | 02/15/06
A different take on email vetting  Eric Thomas | 02/17/06

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here