Newsmaker: You've got (certified) mail!

(continued from previous page)

It allows the recipient ISPs to very easily detect that token, validate that the token is valid and, if so, provide it with the special privileges that are only appropriate to a qualified certified e-mail sender.

How will the user experience change? Will I know that something is different when I'm accessing my AOL or Yahoo mail?
Gingras: Very important point. In the user interfaces at AOL and Yahoo and with other mailbox provided partners as we bring them onboard, they will place the certified e-mail icon, which is an envelope with the blue ribbon on it, in the in-box list view next to the messages that are certified e-mail messages. Also, when the message is opened, that icon is placed prominently in the interface frame around the message. We want it to be very easy for a consumer to see that it is indeed a certified message. In our research, one of the things that we learned from consumers is the one thing they wanted most was a very simple yes or no indication regarding the authenticity of the message, and obviously that's what we're seeking to provide.

So there's nothing the end user has to do?
Gingras: No, and it's very important that the icon be in the user interface obviously, not in the message body. Even people can spoof and put anything into the message body. We'll be educating consumers to look for the certified e-mail icon in the user interface next to the messages.

Who pays what and to whom and how much?
Gingras: The senders who choose to use the service. This is an optional service. If they want to continue to send the messages as they normally do, then certainly, they will do so. We have not set final pricing. We look at it as approximately a quarter cent per message. If they don't find value for that price then they won't be using the service. But the benefits, we think, are significant.

How so?
Gingras: Because these are highly trusted senders sending authentic messages and behaving within the bounds of the system. It's appropriate to be able to deliver them privileges that you really couldn't do otherwise, such as assured delivery of getting the message directly to the server level in-box and bypassing the spam filters.

We're measuring complaint data so we can make sure that they're living up to the rules of the system and then we provide a receipt back to them saying that this message ID was delivered to the server level in-box, or here is the error message as to why it was not.

Are you sharing any of the revenue with the e-mail providers or e-mail service providers?
Gingras: Yes we are, and that's an important point. The e-mail service providers are the ones who bear the full brunt of the cost of trying to keep e-mail clean. E-mail is not a free medium. It is, in a sense, a recipient-pay medium. It used to be very inexpensive, but today, with the kinds of problems we see with spam phishing viruses, they spend quite a bit.

According to the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group, the average ISP spends about $8 to $12 per mailbox per year simply on e-mail hygiene. Obviously, someone as large as an AOL doesn't spend that much, but they do spend tens of millions of dollars a year. It's very expensive, and ultimately that cost gets borne by the consumer--either in the form of their access fees or a reduced level of features and services because the mailbox provider has to spend money trying to keep the in-box clean.

It certainly seems to us that in exchange for providing the special benefits to commercial senders, who benefit tremendously from the e-mail medium from a financial standpoint, that it's appropriate the ISPs have an opportunity to offset at least a portion of their high costs.

Do you know how much you're going to be sharing with those service providers?
Gingras: Yes, It's a significant amount. I would only say that it's over 50 percent.

Can you respond to criticism that your service amounts to extortion or that you're serving as a tollbooth that is possibly going to prevent people who do not pay for the service from getting to in-boxes?
Gingras: There's been an unfortunate degree of intentional misrepresentation as to what this is about, and what you mentioned is one of them. Again, it's an optional service. If they want to use it, they can. If they want to send messages in the standard way, they can and they will do so. If they can't find value from the use of certified e-mail then they won't. To suggest that it's an e-mail tax is to suggest that it's a levy that's forced upon you. It's not. It's an optional service. If you get benefit, great, if you don't, you won't use it.

How do you see this changing the landscape of e-mail, and how is it going to change the economics of how we interact with the service that up until now has been completely free?
Gingras: I'm one of those who thoroughly believes that e-mail is a great and powerful medium because virtually anyone in the world can get an e-mail address easily and at little or no cost and they don't have to show an identity card to get one. If they want an anonymous account, they can get one. That's a great thing, but of course it's also why we end up with some of the problems we have.

It is a classic tragedy of the commons where you have an open environment of a common resource that nefarious bad actors look to take advantage. So, in crafting certified e-mail, we were really looking to target a solution on the problem. The problem isn't about Joe sending an e-mail to Emma or the reverse. The problem is in the commercial volume messaging arena. I don't know a legitimate commercial sender out there who isn't frustrated with the damage done to the space by spam and phishing.  

More Newsmakers

[BengalTigger]

thru the server, stopped by personal spam filter

Hmmm mafia tactics. Make the good guy pay to keep the bad guy away.

I already have my own spam filter and will continue to use it (which will likely filter out much of that email they are paying to make it through the servers.

[massimo1]

Total self-serving claptrap

This guy is justifying selling his product. No one has bothered to ask the recipients (US!!!) if we even want to receive this emails. My guess is that given the choice and except for specified opt-ins, most email recipients would say no. This is still spam under a new name and just a fancy way to bilk companies for paying for it. If the emails can bypass the spam filters, then that presents an even bigger problem.

[pmpscheduler]

Smaller ISPs would solve this problem.

A friend had an ISP several years ago. He was lucky enough to get a small business loan to get a T1 installed in a remote location. He bought servers, equipment, the site was happening! The problem? Not enough subscribers.

We tried wooing AOL subscribers (specifically certain ethnic populations without success.)The web was new, hot, broadband was only for large companies.

Now friends from AOL are crying. I say move your ISP to a company that has not paid this guy overhead and profit to spam mailboxes.

[rcrusoe]

Re: It amounts to extortion

"...it amounts to extortion and poses a threat to legitimate e-mail messages from senders who don't agree to pay, without really decreasing spam."

IMO, that statement is 100% correct. This is just another attempt to create a tiered Internet and should be avoided at all costs. As much a I hate government interferrence it is this type of junk that is convincing more people every day to push for the Internet to become a regulated utility.

I've been able to block over 98% of spam on our servers with no false positives (using free, open source software), and it wasn't that hard. So I know what can be achieved.

[pdaddy1962]

"pristine"

What the hell does "pristine" mean in this context? They can define that word any way they want, and certify some spammer as "pristine".

And the above poster is right, this is nothing but a paid advertisement formatted as "news" article.

[heystoopid]

leading the charge

literally leading the charge for pay for use and time for internet, on top of existing fees!

Oh well, interestingly the world leaders of generating computer spam e-mail, to bilk the users with fees to bypass the blacklists!

As nelson would say Ha! Ha!

[R. U. Sirius]

This is Garbage

Wow, I guess we're now resorting to mafia-life tactics on the net.

This is going to backfire big time. What happens when some critical email gets zapped because they haven't paid the Goodmail Mafia? What happens when a domain who has paid the Goodmail Mafia gets spoofed or zombied?

[pmpscheduler]

The Goodmail mafia will be good mail to many...

but to those of you who change ISPs to someone who does not sell out its subscribers, the handwriting will appear, bright and clear to AOL, Yahoo.

The first time my ISP decides to do something so stupid, I will move.

[UntoldDreams]

Good lord!

This guy wants to pocket 50% of the tax from sending every "certified" e-mail? So if a billion e-mails are sent he gets (1/4 cent each mail) approximately 125 million dollars as a toll bridge operator.

Good gosh. He must have trained at Microsoft during his formative years... I wouldn't necessarily be against this if 99% of it went back to the the people who are actively paying to maintain the infrastructure of the internet...

[baturcotte]

Two questions unanswered

1) How many complaints does it take to mar someone's "pristine" status...and will Goodmail and AOL/Yahoo risk giving up the revenue stream to actually decertify someone?

and

2) It will be harder for a company in business less than a year to "qualify" for Goodmail. But the terms of qualification aren't specified...can a slightly higher pile of green be sufficient to qualify someone?

Interesting Idea, but. . .

There are a lot of problems with this:

1. Lots of marketing guys I know would be very,
very happy to pay $0.05 per e-mail to have it
go past the spam filters. The low cost of this
"service" will increase the amount of spam.

2. While I agree that paying $0.0025 to buy 5 or
10 "good points" on your spam filter score is
probably a good idea, for guaranteed delivery,
$1.50 seems like more of a fair price.

3. Why does AOL get the money? If they want me
to read the e-mail, they should pay _me_.

4. Imagine that some spammer gets past the
background checks and is sending herbal viagra
e-mails with a certificate? What exactly do I
have to do to get this guy de-certified?


The bottom line, IMHO, goes like this:

$0.0025 is WAY too low a price for a guaranteed
by-pass of the spam filters. Guaranteed by-pass
should cost at least US $1.

Calm down

I think some of you are overreacting just a teensy bit. As Mr. Gringas explains it, companies that use e-mail marketing can choose to use this service, or not. It's not a "tax;" it's a business service one can pay for or not.

I personally think this could work, if the man means what he says about vetting the e-mail senders to be sure they're legitimate businesses. As we all know, spam filters are not perfect. I've had to re-authorize domains sending me e-mail I actually want several times in my Postini setup. It keeps choking off the same senders even though I've specifically put them on the "white hat" list again and again. If those senders were on a list of authorized domains maybe I'd get their mail a little sooner without having to keep re-authorizing it all the time.

If this service takes off and it is found later that real spammers get through the filters, for whatever reason, then you'll have cause for complaint. I really think this is a good idea.

[J.G.]

Spam comes from 'good guys,' too

I disagree. Legitimate businesses send out spam. Defining
'spam,' as unwanted email, of course. What I think would
happen with such a system is that these legitimate business
would increase their volume of spam, likely shifting junk snail
mail to spam email, because it would be guaranteed to get
through. So, one would get more spam from legitimate
businesses.

What Gingras is ignoring is that most of don't want spam from
either good or bad guys.

[Sentinel]

Interesting allies

While their intentions are good, these people are using someone else's ideas for spam-filtering. Bill Gates was the first to propose e-postage as a solution to spam. Now the companies are the ones to pay, which is a good thing. But I have doubts as to how effective it really is. Much emphasis seems to be put on the ideas, but little detail is given on how it actually filters unqualified messages. A "cryptographic token" doesn't really seem all that unbreakable, and, if non tokenized messages can still be recieved, what's the point?

Yahoo will start using it, huh? The site that says "We collect personal information on this site." Undoubtedly used to send more "commercial spam". Yahoo even sent a message once "From this day forward, you will recieve occassional advertising in your Inbox." Now they say they want to clean up their act? Very doubtful. Who's gonna pay all their crappy advertising now? Advertising which their own filters can't block.

While the intent is appreciated, I highlt doubt it will be successful. Good luck, Goodmail.

[Earl Benser]

As far as I can tell....

... this is a useless concept. It seems to only run an AOL and Yahoo,
which I don't use. It seems to say that the routine spam will make it
through, just not as fast as the 'blessed' spam. So, big deal!

One more waste of time looking for funding.

[209979377489953107664053243186]

Not enough to stop SPAM

I'm not sold that this solution will decrease the amount of SPAM people receive nor that the filtering process will not "accidentally" remove important emails from recipients' inbox. The goal is to make people feel safer communicating with their financial institutions. Why aren't our banks setting up solutions like Taceo, that use authentication technology to verify who they are? Simple software like this could be set up at the same time you open a bank account...

http://www.essentialsecurity.com/howitworks.htm

[mdrouillard]

Try to Remember what SPAM is

Everyone, let's not forget what spam really is, or at least a major cause of it. It is mostly email that can be sent to our inboxes from folks who we can't trust their identity. Most SPAM has forged email reply addresses, which then in turn allows these SPAMers to insert all kinds of viruses, tracking cookies, etc into the body of the messages, because we have no way of tracking them down to shut them up. If you could verify the true source of every email in your inbox, and a system existed to block unknown/unverifiable senders by end user choice, much of the dangers of email would disappear. This is not much different than a caller who keeps calling me on my home number. I can ask the police to intervene and order the telco to disconnect their phone! The source caller's line can in most cases be identified. Think of the amount of email that would not even be sent your way if the sender could not hide behind a false identity. Add to this a public/private key exchange that could be added easily into most email clients/email systems that would encrypt the email body so that the content of the email would be more protected than the electronic equivelant of a postcard. The Goodmail concept is flawed, not because it tries to eliminate spam, but rather it does not solve the root cause of why we get so much email spam and it does not protect the email contect from attack in the first place.

[stoicnluv]

Very good point...

Nicely explained.
I just hope most people here who are paranoid
understood your point, they just over-react right
away...

[J.G.]

Flawed definition of spam

Spam is email that the recipient does not want regardless of who it
comes from. I no more want life insurance offers from my banks
than I want offers of Viagra. By not accepting email from banks, I
avoid their spam.

[ORinSF]

Junk mailers don't use FedEx

Of course this isn't a complete solution to spam or phishing, but it's one more tool to increase the chances of legitimate mail being distinguished from junk. Add it to Domain Keys and SenderID.

A quarter of a cent is really not cheap when multiplied out to the tens of thousands. It may even turn out to be prohibitive, who knows. A lot of banks still send snail mail (uncertified) for things they deem too important for email. This could replace those.

The (physical) junk mail that I receive is sent the cheapest way possible. I am pretty willing to bet that my Fedex packages are worth attention. The junk mailers *could* use Fedex, but somewhere around 0% actually do.

Also, Goodmail is vouching for the sender and stipulates behavior. If you come to believe that Goodmail is a good brand, then you will trust the mail. If not, not. Perhaps some competitors will jump into the fray -- Verisign, RSA, Symantec?

[mortalnishant]

It is like controlling the internet

There was a huge cry over USA controlling the domain servers recently. But very few realise that what goodmail is doing is similar to that because next thing you know u will be charged to send e-mails to individuals something like the proposed pennyblack system by microdof.
Can goodmail guaremtee that the mails of common users will not be intentionally blocked?

[MrHandle]

Wouldn't Work

There's no way you could prevent the "Stamps" from being electronically forged. This is just more greedy nonsense.

[snavely77]

no thank you

the government has wanted to tax email for years now because it's taking away money from the post office. since their attempts have failed, this seems like just another way to garner money...this company will have to pay taxes on the profit, I'm assuming, like all other for-profit companies in our country. no thank you, I'll simply continue to use Mozilla Thunderbird and will be very cautious to whom I give my email address.

[pmpscheduler]

Fellow Thunderbird user...

I agree with you. The internet has been the best thing to happen to the over-taxed consumer. Smart internet, computer savvy users, professionals (including the Indians, Chinese, Russians, etc... receiving out-sourced IT jobs) will come up with some other free-open-source solution to debunk the dinosaurs currently sitting on their steak and lobster posteriors on my and your dime. Revenue will fall, and AOL/Yahoo will see the errors in their ways.

I am trying to get as many of my AOL friends as possible to move to someone else anyway. Now they are listening.

Yahoo is basically free for most of its users. Those that pay should reconsider and move, when this guy gets approval to get his welfare check.

The dumb ideas that elected officials are actually spend time on lets me know many elected officials need to lose their positions in the next few elections. From the input in talkback, many of the readers agree. Let's vote our interest into the next senatorial/congressional seat.

[amajamin]

A good spam filter goes a LONG way

A combination of good server-side and client-side spam filters weed out a good 98% of spam. That in addition to a little common sense on who you give your e-mail address out to eliminates almost all spam and the need to charge some ridiculous e-mail postage.

[darkane]

The End Of Ethics

I felt the need to fume about this, but I'd rather not copy and paste into here.

Read it at:

http://www.bryanserven.com/