What Esther really said about Goodmail

What Esther really said about Goodmail

Summary: I posted on Monday about the DearAOL coalition's take on Esther Dyson's New York Times op-ed column on Goodmail's CertifiedEmail approach to fighting spam, and Esther's follow up response. In an email, Esther further explained her viewpoint and where DearAOL miscued:I never got the courtesy of a reply from the PR firm that sent out the press release with the headline: "In New York Times, AOL email tax supporter says it's 'only right' that in future "most e-mail will cost money.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Collaboration
3

I posted on Monday about the DearAOL coalition's take on Esther Dyson's New York Times op-ed column onesther150.jpg Goodmail's CertifiedEmail approach to fighting spam, and Esther's follow up response. In an email, Esther further explained her viewpoint and where DearAOL miscued:

I never got the courtesy of a reply from the PR firm that sent out the press release with the headline: "In New York Times, AOL email tax supporter says it's 'only right' that in future "most e-mail will cost money." What I actually said is that "sending" mail would cost money, and that receiving mail will likely "earn" you money (in systems managed by third parties that may include Goodmail and will certainly include competitors solutions).

At least now the DearAOL blog post headline has been changed to the less misleading, "AOL email tax supporter debunks AOL claim that 'nothing will change.' "

But, I do think that things will change. They always do, unless someone tries to freeze things the way they are.  I'm proud to be quoted correctly. I am not so much pro-Goodmail (or pro-AOL) as pro-choice. I think people and companies should be allowed to try out whatever (legal) business models they like, and that over time the good ones will prevail. If Goodmail is a bad idea, it will die of its own accord. If the DearAOL coalition's fears prove true, people won't get the mail they want and will move to mail services that don't work with Goodmail.

I just don't think we all need EFF and MoveOn.org to protect us from bad business ideas, or to keep twisting the description of a voluntary paid service for senders into "an email tax."

Topic: Collaboration

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

3 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • The Solution

    Well, as biased as I am, I am the CEO of Mujica Technologies (www.mujica.com), I feel there is a middle ground. The middle ground lives here:

    - Deliver non-commercial email at no cost with the same benfits and efficiency as commercial certified email, only after the entity responsible for that server accepts and demonstrates responsibility.
    - Have an independent uninterested certifying authority audit how responsible these bulk commercial senders are.
    - Charge advertisers which can prove that they send only to those which request their information.
    - Provide the solution free of charge to all recipients.

    Responsible commercial bulk email senders get through to those recipients that have requested the information, non-commercial and individual email senders can also attain first class email delivery at no cost to them and recipients get something back, an anti-spam solution at no cost.

    Once again, I am Mujica Technologies' CEO, so I am biased. But, this is, without a doubt, the only way to resolve the spam problem without destroying email as a viable marketing channel.

    For more information about Mujica Technologies and the solution outlined above, got to www.mujica.com and to contact me directly please email me at amujica@mujica.com
    alberto8
  • Markets and regulation

    It's been a long time since anyone took seriously the idea of completely unregulated markets, particularly in areas of shared resources - like telecommunications.

    The question is simply when and how we regulate.

    While we want companies to be innovative in finding solutions to spam and abuse, we also should require them to preserve the open nature of the networks they provide and administer.

    They rightly have no interest in doing so, but we as a society have an enormous one.

    This is the very definition of the moment that regulation is called for.

    Aaron
    aaronelliotross
  • I hope it works

    I went out to goodmail's website and I looked at the product and thier partners. This product is, of course targeting almost exclusivly people who send spam (They are the only ones that want to spend real money on this type of stuff).

    The folks using thier service may be playing by "The rules" and including "opt-out" and all that, but in the end they are sending email to try an sell someone something. it's spam.

    And I hope it works, because given the description, the messages will be tagged and I can filter it out into the bit bucket.
    tima_z