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." 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.