Postage is due for companies sending e-mail

Companies will have to buy the electronic equivalent of a postage stamp to ensure their e-mail is delivered to customers.
The New York Times

The story "Postage is due for companies sending e-mail" published February 4, 2006 at 3:51 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[ErvServer]

USPS now has a way to survive

if they ( United States Postal Service ) can figure out a way to do this also they will survive the electronic age

[zaznet]

This is not a tax, or "postage"

This is a service agreement between two companies. AOL offering an assured delivery service if you pay for that service. This is a poor model as it introduces too many people to pay. What really needs to happen is a company in the middle that both sides pay for assured email transfer.

[BrandonR]

Uhhh

Who do you think provides shipping services for so many online stores and companies? I doubt the USPS (or any other postal/shipping company) has much to worry about.

[ErvServer]

USPS now has a way to survive

if they ( United States Postal Service ) can figure out a way to do this also they will survive the electronic age

[zaznet]

This is not a tax, or "postage"

This is a service agreement between two companies. AOL offering an assured delivery service if you pay for that service. This is a poor model as it introduces too many people to pay. What really needs to happen is a company in the middle that both sides pay for assured email transfer.

[BrandonR]

Uhhh

Who do you think provides shipping services for so many online stores and companies? I doubt the USPS (or any other postal/shipping company) has much to worry about.

[jsdoyle]

Another reason to avoid AOL

I can't believe Yahoo would go along with it. Stupid idea. I hope most corporations avoid this and put a halt to it.

[jsdoyle]

Another reason to avoid AOL

I can't believe Yahoo would go along with it. Stupid idea. I hope most corporations avoid this and put a halt to it.

[thenet411]

I beg to differ

"We have some prerogative to move to a system that asks for other people to participate and share the financial burden in making a clean e-mail environment on the Internet,"
That is absolute insanity. That statement is right up there with the CEO of SBC/AT&T saying:
?I ain?t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it,? Whitacre said in the interview, adding that anyone who thinks the Internet should be free in that sense is ?nuts.?
That is the cost of doing business. You want people to use your services? Build something they want to use! People would have left AOL in droves if AOL did nothing to combat SPAM. That is how you keep customers. You give them what they want. The old saying "If you build it, they will come" is as true in the Internet age as it was when it was first spoken.
All this talk of a tiered Internet has me VERY concerned. The Internet was created to be a free and democratic medium. Sure, you have the idiots that spout drivel in their blogs and call it the truth, but that has always been the case. I can remember in 1994 when I searched for information on anything from the safest car to the best computer that I had to weed out the uninformed opinions from the actual side by side reviews. Back then, it was easier because only people with HTML skills could produce content for the Internet. Now, every nutcase can have his or her own Internet soapbox with a few clicks of a mouse. So, free and democratic speech definately has a downside. But that is no justification for forcing content providers to pay a fee to these big telecommunist companies. I believe that if the ISPs are allowed to go ahead with their plans (and these ISPs are busy crafting a LOT of rules that will do nothing but hurt customers and make them even richer than they already are) the Internet will be absolutely destroyed.
Please, everyone, phone your congressman, your senators, your local newspapers, anyone you can think of and help prevent the destruction of the Internet. The Internet was not meant to be like this. It was created with an open and free architecture and took decades to reach the wonderful state it is in today. Don't let the telecommunists ruin it in 5 seconds with the flick of a switch.

[mahurshi]

hahahaha.. i like the term "telecommunist"

cheers mate! :-)

[NWLB]

I agree to an extent.

This is just another battle of market forces vs. mindless companies chasing the bottom line. The collective force that is the Internet has seen this before and defeated it. "We have met the enemy, and they are ours."

Companies are trying to make money from something that fights against it as well or better than they do. AOL still tries to keep people from downloading mail to their systems for exactly this reason. Nevermind that with a little bit of know-how, you can get around their IMAP farce.

This will either backfire or fail, just give it time. There isn't anything that keeps the net free except the fact that people are fully trained to expect more for less as time goes by. And that is why AOL can't survive on subscriptions alone. AOL still doesn't have management that has any clue of the nature of its customer base.

NWLB
***********
http://www.NWLB.net

[HairyBoozehound]

The old saying...

is actually less than 20 years old. It was from a Kevin Costner film, and it was about watching ghosts play baseball.

[thenet411]

I beg to differ

"We have some prerogative to move to a system that asks for other people to participate and share the financial burden in making a clean e-mail environment on the Internet,"
That is absolute insanity. That statement is right up there with the CEO of SBC/AT&T saying:
?I ain?t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it,? Whitacre said in the interview, adding that anyone who thinks the Internet should be free in that sense is ?nuts.?
That is the cost of doing business. You want people to use your services? Build something they want to use! People would have left AOL in droves if AOL did nothing to combat SPAM. That is how you keep customers. You give them what they want. The old saying "If you build it, they will come" is as true in the Internet age as it was when it was first spoken.
All this talk of a tiered Internet has me VERY concerned. The Internet was created to be a free and democratic medium. Sure, you have the idiots that spout drivel in their blogs and call it the truth, but that has always been the case. I can remember in 1994 when I searched for information on anything from the safest car to the best computer that I had to weed out the uninformed opinions from the actual side by side reviews. Back then, it was easier because only people with HTML skills could produce content for the Internet. Now, every nutcase can have his or her own Internet soapbox with a few clicks of a mouse. So, free and democratic speech definately has a downside. But that is no justification for forcing content providers to pay a fee to these big telecommunist companies. I believe that if the ISPs are allowed to go ahead with their plans (and these ISPs are busy crafting a LOT of rules that will do nothing but hurt customers and make them even richer than they already are) the Internet will be absolutely destroyed.
Please, everyone, phone your congressman, your senators, your local newspapers, anyone you can think of and help prevent the destruction of the Internet. The Internet was not meant to be like this. It was created with an open and free architecture and took decades to reach the wonderful state it is in today. Don't let the telecommunists ruin it in 5 seconds with the flick of a switch.

[mahurshi]

hahahaha.. i like the term "telecommunist"

cheers mate! :-)

[NWLB]

I agree to an extent.

This is just another battle of market forces vs. mindless companies chasing the bottom line. The collective force that is the Internet has seen this before and defeated it. "We have met the enemy, and they are ours."

Companies are trying to make money from something that fights against it as well or better than they do. AOL still tries to keep people from downloading mail to their systems for exactly this reason. Nevermind that with a little bit of know-how, you can get around their IMAP farce.

This will either backfire or fail, just give it time. There isn't anything that keeps the net free except the fact that people are fully trained to expect more for less as time goes by. And that is why AOL can't survive on subscriptions alone. AOL still doesn't have management that has any clue of the nature of its customer base.

NWLB
***********
http://www.NWLB.net

[HairyBoozehound]

The old saying...

is actually less than 20 years old. It was from a Kevin Costner film, and it was about watching ghosts play baseball.

[System Tyrant]

I like the idea...

but I don't think it's going to fly.

I figure it won't work or they will both end up in court with users screaming about missing e-mails or something silly.

If it does work we can all expect to see this in just about every e-mail system not run on a local server.

Although I don't know the gist of it, I think it might work better than IP based blacklist. I do think that it's a little unfair because you are requiring those who send requested e-mails to pay for the spam problem. Well, requiring might be a bit much, but strongly suggesting it.

I think they will find a way to reduce spam by at least 75% someday, but it will probably be when we all see Internet 5.

[System Tyrant]

I like the idea...

but I don't think it's going to fly.

I figure it won't work or they will both end up in court with users screaming about missing e-mails or something silly.

If it does work we can all expect to see this in just about every e-mail system not run on a local server.

Although I don't know the gist of it, I think it might work better than IP based blacklist. I do think that it's a little unfair because you are requiring those who send requested e-mails to pay for the spam problem. Well, requiring might be a bit much, but strongly suggesting it.

I think they will find a way to reduce spam by at least 75% someday, but it will probably be when we all see Internet 5.

[solarflair]

postage

I think this is a stupid idea, the internet should stay free.

[solarflair]

postage

I think this is a stupid idea, the internet should stay free.

[solarflair]

AOL

Your right-on about AOL and Yahoo, next thing you know they will want to charge to post messages in blogs on the net.

[solarflair]

AOL

Your right-on about AOL and Yahoo, next thing you know they will want to charge to post messages in blogs on the net.

Isn't it Ironic

I find it ironic that 1 of the 2 companies proposing to charge senders for email is and has long been one of the greatest spam offenders by offering spammers and scam artists a haven in their free email systems. Over the years our company alone has filtered thousands if not millions of spam messages either sent through yahoo's mail system or with yahoo replyto email addresses, much less turning over fraud artists in our own industry that rely on using yahoo's email system as a dead drop. Yahoo needs to clean up it's own house before it can propose such an idea.
It helped create the mess, moreso than many other companies.

I can tell you that should it come to this, as a business we will either just pass the costs back to the consumer, specifically the consumers using those email systems OR discontinue allowing site registrations and subscriptions from users of those email providers in total.

Our business has long been moving away from relying on email communications with our customers
and moving towards other methods of communication
like internal messaging systems simply because
the proliferation of filters eliminates such a high percentage of our messages to our users.
This will only hasten our moves in that direction.

Jeff Barringer
President/CEO
--
OnlineHobbyist.com, Inc.
home of...
http://pethobbyist.com
http://aquariumhobbyist.com
http://birdhobbyist.com
http://cathobbyist.com
http://doghobbyist.com
http://exotichobbyist.com
http://horsehobbyist.com
http://insecthobbyist.com
http://kingsnake.com
http://kingsnake.ca
http://kingsnake.co.uk
http://pondhobbyist.com
http://petpress.net
http://rescuenetwork.org

[thenet411]

YOU are the spammer!

How dare you come on here ******** about SPAMMERs and then you SPAM us with your lame addresses? Get a life you freak.

[www.sorehands.com]

Not offender

They are not an offender because they are being abused. Do you blame the victim of having their car stolen for having their car stolen? You are blaming them for being joe-jobbed or someone using registering their email system in violation of their terms and conditions. They could be better about it by posting the registration information when the account is shut down.

[Thomas, David]

You are so right about that!

The spam havens for spammers has been AOL and Yahoo for years! It IS very interesting. It can't be a coincidence.

BTW: People can create there own email servers.

Isn't it Ironic

I find it ironic that 1 of the 2 companies proposing to charge senders for email is and has long been one of the greatest spam offenders by offering spammers and scam artists a haven in their free email systems. Over the years our company alone has filtered thousands if not millions of spam messages either sent through yahoo's mail system or with yahoo replyto email addresses, much less turning over fraud artists in our own industry that rely on using yahoo's email system as a dead drop. Yahoo needs to clean up it's own house before it can propose such an idea.
It helped create the mess, moreso than many other companies.

I can tell you that should it come to this, as a business we will either just pass the costs back to the consumer, specifically the consumers using those email systems OR discontinue allowing site registrations and subscriptions from users of those email providers in total.

Our business has long been moving away from relying on email communications with our customers
and moving towards other methods of communication
like internal messaging systems simply because
the proliferation of filters eliminates such a high percentage of our messages to our users.
This will only hasten our moves in that direction.

Jeff Barringer
President/CEO
--
OnlineHobbyist.com, Inc.
home of...
http://pethobbyist.com
http://aquariumhobbyist.com
http://birdhobbyist.com
http://cathobbyist.com
http://doghobbyist.com
http://exotichobbyist.com
http://horsehobbyist.com
http://insecthobbyist.com
http://kingsnake.com
http://kingsnake.ca
http://kingsnake.co.uk
http://pondhobbyist.com
http://petpress.net
http://rescuenetwork.org

[thenet411]

YOU are the spammer!

How dare you come on here ******** about SPAMMERs and then you SPAM us with your lame addresses? Get a life you freak.

[www.sorehands.com]

Not offender

They are not an offender because they are being abused. Do you blame the victim of having their car stolen for having their car stolen? You are blaming them for being joe-jobbed or someone using registering their email system in violation of their terms and conditions. They could be better about it by posting the registration information when the account is shut down.

[Thomas, David]

You are so right about that!

The spam havens for spammers has been AOL and Yahoo for years! It IS very interesting. It can't be a coincidence.

BTW: People can create there own email servers.

[zaznet]

Won't work well enough...

This won't work well enough because there are two many third parties to pay for each delivery service. What is needed is a service in the middle that both parties pay into that handles delivery between them in a way they can ensure comes from a more trusted source.

It is not free to build a system of trust, but many companies have been able to build that on the Internet. SSL Certificate providers require a pay-in trust model. Email can be managed in the same way and if there is one (or few) trusted parties to deal with all the better.

[zaznet]

Won't work well enough...

This won't work well enough because there are two many third parties to pay for each delivery service. What is needed is a service in the middle that both parties pay into that handles delivery between them in a way they can ensure comes from a more trusted source.

It is not free to build a system of trust, but many companies have been able to build that on the Internet. SSL Certificate providers require a pay-in trust model. Email can be managed in the same way and if there is one (or few) trusted parties to deal with all the better.

[fuzz_ball]

What a scam!

This is simply a way for the big portals to actually *encourage*
spam. That's right, they make more money the more spam you get.
And now spammers can pay an "extortion" fee in order to bypass
these portals' spam filters. In the end the only people not making
out like bandits are the e-mail recipients.

Do yourself a favor and let your portal know you can see their
through their bogus "we're trying to make the situation better" BS,
and that you won't stand for it.

[fuzz_ball]

What a scam!

This is simply a way for the big portals to actually *encourage*
spam. That's right, they make more money the more spam you get.
And now spammers can pay an "extortion" fee in order to bypass
these portals' spam filters. In the end the only people not making
out like bandits are the e-mail recipients.

Do yourself a favor and let your portal know you can see their
through their bogus "we're trying to make the situation better" BS,
and that you won't stand for it.

[ron836]

no way

Go a head with yahoo and I'll be looking for a new email service.

[ron836]

no way

Go a head with yahoo and I'll be looking for a new email service.