More Spam Fraud
I've read a few more articles and posts (here, here and here) on the AOL/Yahoo initiatives to charge high volume senders and find myself in what seems to be the tiny minority of people that think this is a good thing.
Let's take a look at the constituents involved here and see who is better off, who is not, and who has an incentive to change.
If I have an email account with either Yahoo or AOL, I'm better off because I won't get as false positives (might even be able to avoid checking my blocked folder). I can't imagine that any user is going to be less happy with their service because they get less spam, so satisfaction improves.
If I'm AOL or Yahoo, I've got more satisfied users and I don't have to spend money constantly upgrading my spam filter technology. I'm much better off.
If I'm a legitimate individual sender to an A/Y user, I'm indifferent since I won't pay. Admittedly, my mail might get caught in a spam filter, but if I truly do have a relationship with the recipient, they'll put me on their whitelist.
If I'm a legitimate bulk mailer to an A/Y user, presumably the cost of a stamp is lower than the cost of trapped emails and the other means by which to communicate with the users. Granted, this is an assumption, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now, since there must be a price at which this is true. Might in fact be $0.00, but I believe that it is a small positive value.
This will, of course, increase the cost of communicating with me. But that's fine too. I WANT them to examine weather or not sending me an email is worth it. If I bought a Widget from NetCo 8 yrs. ago and nothing since, what's wrong with NetCo simply reaching the obvious conclusion that I don't want any more DAMN WIDGETS!
If it's a charity or other non-profit, use this cost as a means to establish even stronger ties with someone by getting them to put you on their whitelist.
As I go down this list of constituents, I can't find any that are worse off.
The argument I frequently read is that spammer can now buy stamps and gain access to my inbox. This is a specious argument. Any reasonable estimates of the volume of spam, and the cost to buy stamps makes this strategy self limiting. Does anyone think that a spammer is going to pay even $0.0001 to send Viagra spam. Do the math. It doesn't add up.
The funny thing about markets is that they find their own equilibrum. If A/Y users find these efforts onerous or ineffective, they'll vote with their feet.
Let's take a look at the constituents involved here and see who is better off, who is not, and who has an incentive to change.
If I have an email account with either Yahoo or AOL, I'm better off because I won't get as false positives (might even be able to avoid checking my blocked folder). I can't imagine that any user is going to be less happy with their service because they get less spam, so satisfaction improves.
If I'm AOL or Yahoo, I've got more satisfied users and I don't have to spend money constantly upgrading my spam filter technology. I'm much better off.
If I'm a legitimate individual sender to an A/Y user, I'm indifferent since I won't pay. Admittedly, my mail might get caught in a spam filter, but if I truly do have a relationship with the recipient, they'll put me on their whitelist.
If I'm a legitimate bulk mailer to an A/Y user, presumably the cost of a stamp is lower than the cost of trapped emails and the other means by which to communicate with the users. Granted, this is an assumption, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now, since there must be a price at which this is true. Might in fact be $0.00, but I believe that it is a small positive value.
This will, of course, increase the cost of communicating with me. But that's fine too. I WANT them to examine weather or not sending me an email is worth it. If I bought a Widget from NetCo 8 yrs. ago and nothing since, what's wrong with NetCo simply reaching the obvious conclusion that I don't want any more DAMN WIDGETS!
If it's a charity or other non-profit, use this cost as a means to establish even stronger ties with someone by getting them to put you on their whitelist.
As I go down this list of constituents, I can't find any that are worse off.
The argument I frequently read is that spammer can now buy stamps and gain access to my inbox. This is a specious argument. Any reasonable estimates of the volume of spam, and the cost to buy stamps makes this strategy self limiting. Does anyone think that a spammer is going to pay even $0.0001 to send Viagra spam. Do the math. It doesn't add up.
The funny thing about markets is that they find their own equilibrum. If A/Y users find these efforts onerous or ineffective, they'll vote with their feet.
1 Comments:
Hello Chris!
Nice blog that you have here!
I probably can't quite agree with your last posting, though. I understand your arguments. However, don't forget that not everyone may be using e-mail the way you do. For example, you state that "if I truly do have a relationship with the recipient, they'll put me on their whitelist". That is not necessarily so. I am constantly exchanging e-mails with people who I don't even have in my address book, let alone in some whitelist. I either just type their address (faster than looking it up), or I simply reply to their last mail. Putting all of these people in some personal whitelist and then having to manage it would be way too much effort.
AOL/Yahoo and others will tighten the 'spam filtering' criteria to a point that will put any non-paid-for mail at a high risk of being placed in the bulk folder. Thus, in the end, you as the user will still have to wade through all the stuff in there, to make sure you didn't miss anything important. Will that be good for you? No! Will it be good for AOL/Yahoo? Sure, since more people will be compelled to pay for the delivery. It's a bit like a good old fashion protection racket: "Pay up, or something ... bad ... might happen (to your e-mail)."
Who will be hurt? All the many, many not-for-profit mailing lists. For example for software developers, clubs, common interest discussion groups, etc. They are often run on a purely volunteer basis. There's absolutely no money for paid delivery.
Put the addresses of those newsletters/mailings you want in your whitelist? That's nice, except that the signup confirmation mail often comes from a different address, and I won't even get that one now anymore. I have seen this happen already, with the current more relaxed spam filtering. It's going to get much worse if the pay plan is implemented.
Juergen
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home