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.

Spam Fraud...

The recent announcement that Yahoo and AOL will start to charge bulk mail senders to bypass spam filters seems to be generating quite a controversy.

But it comes as no surprise to me that the only ones complaining are the free riders. I've read their arguments and they're all blatantly self serving.

The direct email marketers say they can't afford to send you their valuable 'Free Vacation' email because the economics don't add up.

Hello? That's the point!

The white list and reputation based 'bonded' emailer say that reputation is really the way to determine if a sender is legit or not. I'll agree that reputation might be a good way to determine legitimacy, but I'll never agree that reputation ought to mean someone should get something for nothing.

Matt Blumberg, CEO of bonded email provider ReturnPath, says in his corporate blog that:

"Email stamps also do feel like they put the world on a slippery slope towards paid spam -- towards saying that money matters more than reputation."

Not exactly sure what universe Matt lives in, because where I live, for these sorts of things, money does matter more than reputation. Will the bus take me downtown because I have a good reputation? Will a restaurant serve me a meal because I'm a good guy? Will the post office deliver my dad's mail to me without a stamp because I trust him?

To argue that reputation somehow trumps economics simply fails to acknowledge the fundamental problem of spam. The costs of spam are not incurred by the spammers. Imposing costs on volume senders is a modest effort to shift to them a greater share of the burden.

I'm all for businesses that can exploit economic inefficiencies (like free email), and legit direct email marketers have done just that. But you won't see any crocodile tears from me when something becomes more efficient (no free email). If your market gets more efficient (and they always do), change your business and adapt. Or die.

Any spam remediation system that doesn't address this is simply treating the symptoms, not the cause. Charging senders to send email makes the email economy more efficient. That can only be a good thing.

As far as I'm concerned, GoodMail is GreatMail.

I hope they are successful and that this evolves toward the recipient getting some of this revenue. Maybe Matt's idea of paid spam isn't so bad. If the price was right, I'd let spam into my inbox, no problem.

I'd love to see the day when we could start to worry about Spam Fraud.

It's sorta like the Y2K problem...

I read that Bill Gates' tax return is kept on a separate computer by the IRS. Apparently, the standard systems can't handle the large numbers....

I call this the Y2R problem. You're Too Rich.