Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You understand that and I understand that, but I don't think it's easy to grasp from the pages whose URLs you posted. What _is_ easy to grasp is that bulk emailers who have been getting a certain level of QoS for free are now being asked to pay for it, and they're upset. Stinks of special interest to high heaven. Dave Let me see if I understand the model: Dave AOL creates a specialized, rather expensive process that it Dave provides for free, to ensure delivery of a class of mail. [If you want to know why Brad asks if you're an intentional shill for the advertising industry, there you have it. The purpose of the process from the point of view of the AOL subscriber is to ensure _non_-delivery of a class of mail. I doubt most subscribers really care whether they get their opt-in mailings from specially selected advertisers---but those advertisers care, and care enough to pay! Most public-service MLs, on the other hand, will not be able to pay. Except those which are mailing solicitations for donations! Who is being served here? Advertisers, not AOL or mailing list subscribers.] Dave The operation of this mechanism is pure overhead for AOL. True, but only because they don't dare charge their subscribers for it. Dave Worse, it is distinct to AOL. To the extent any other Dave receive-side ISP operates such a service, it is entirely Dave independent of AOL. That is, anyone wanting on these special Dave lists must to special things for each of these lists. Dave So along comes a few companies who are trying to find ways Dave to let receive-side ISPs outsource the job of assuring that Dave trustable bulk mail is, in fact, trusted. (That is, the Dave receiver wants this stuff and these services are provding Dave ways to assure that they get it.) Note: trusted _by the ISP_. The ISP should be a reliable representative of their subscribers, or the whole scheme is suspicious. As a former AOL subscriber, I'm pretty sure that AOL never had anything in mind but hanging on to the direct debit for as long as possible. Dave These companies offer mechanisms that will work across Dave multiple receive-side services and they all all charge the Dave sender for the special handling that is needed to bypass Dave most or all of the receive-side filters. (Just to nit-pick, Dave EWL membership does not bypass all filters, while a Goodmail Dave token will, as I understand it.) If a Goodmail token bypasses any user-defined filters, that's spam. If AOL doesn't provide a way for users to define such filters, they're aiding and abetting, no? Ie, they will help the advertiser/Goodmail to push things as close as possible to what the subscriber(s) consider unacceptable. In particular, they are likely to adopt a voting criterion for unwanted, or a wanted until specifically refused criterion. All in the name of maximizing information flow. Dave So one of these services lands some strategic relationships [Ie, attempts to restrict trade. :-) That's all that strategic relationship means, has ever meant, or can ever mean. If it meant something else, you'd call it by a more precise name: customer- supplier, competitor, etc.] Dave and makes a splash announcing them. Somehow, this Dave value-added service is heralded as subversive, Tut, tut. I certainly wouldn't call this service revolutionary, although I wouldn't be surprised if AOL/Goodmail do! Dave in spite of the fact that pretty much all other Dave communication services have levels of service. Dave I must be missing something, here. Yes. First, you may have missed the fact that special interest above refers to bulk emailers who have been getting best QoS for free. Second, the key point is that, up until spam, where carriers provide QoS to third parties, the cost to the third party of getting high quality far exceeded the cost to the user of not picking up the phone. Modern telecommunications, and especially the Internet, changes that comparison; we can no longer assume the costs of ignoring unwanted communication are negligible, and anything that guarantees arrival of a transmission has the potential to impose such costs. Third, the fact that AOL/Goodmail are certifying mail in bulk as an exclusive relationship[1] rather than competitively offering various ways to help users filter at the mailbox level means that they are (more or less deliberately) setting up a situation where they can turn the communication connection to a very large block of users in one click of a GUI. Stretching the point to make a point, under the Sherman Act that's prima facie an illegal combination in restraint of trade.[2] Put it this way: what is wrong with a competitive solution where AOL allows the _users_ to choose _one or more_ filtering service(s)? Besides reducing revenue to Goodmail and AOL (and
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
Stephen, Dave AOL creates a specialized, rather expensive process that it Dave provides for free, to ensure delivery of a class of mail. [If you want to know why Brad asks if you're an intentional shill for the advertising industry, there you have it. The purpose of the process from the point of view of the AOL subscriber is to ensure _non_-delivery of a class of mail. Do you expect your postal service to screen your mail, or your phone company to screen your calls? In other words, this demand that we place on the receive-side email service is really quite extraordinary. That does not make it unreasonable, but it does mean we need to be careful about what we expect and how it is valued (and paid for.) Given the arms-race nature of the filtering world, the cost of doing it well increases without bound. That's not such a good business model, when it represents pure overhead, rather than resulting in direct revenue. (I am assuming that serious discussion about these issues views it as acceptable for a business to make a profit.) lecture More generally, a serious challenge in these kinds of discussions is the failure to see it as requiring a 'negotiation' among the participants, including authors, recipients, and all the operators. Each has different goals and constraints, and some of the constraints compete with each other. So we need to approach the topic with an understanding that there are no perfect solutions. Equally, every set of participants has some good actors and some bad actors. Not everyone who sends bulk mail is doing a bad thing. Not everyone who complains about mail they receive is doing so carefully and in good faith. So this negotiation towards an acceptable-but-imperfect solution must worry about misbehaviors from any direction. And the third challenge is that this all involves a bit of very large-scale, very important infrastructure operation. No one -- and I mean no one -- knows how to do that perfectly. The absolute rule when making any change to a social system -- and email definitely is one -- is that will have unintended consequences, most of which will be undesirable. /lecture What we have today is an undifferentiated mass of email, with a very poor signal to noise ratio. What the services that focus on good reputation are trying to do is to identify a class of senders who will have a very *good* signal to noise ratio, and thereby handle this safer set of mail in a way that gives better service, namely better delivery assurances. Once we agree that this is a reasonable goal, then we are debating methodology. My own view is that any new methodology for a difficult problem is an experiment. Some experiments look more plausible than others, but ultimately, none of them has a certain outcome. The only thing that is important is to make sure that it is possible to conduct multiple experiments and that the evaluation of them can be done by the market. The hyperbole and polarization, present in the current public environment, makes sure that serious market evaluation is not possible. I doubt most subscribers really care whether they get their opt-in mailings from specially selected advertisers---but those advertisers care, and care enough to pay! This represents a good example of missing the point. The better signal-to-noise efforts are not focusing on delivering advertising but on servicing existing customer relationships. The pristine example of this is transaction mail -- and that has nothing to do with advertising. Of course, companies with whom one does transactions also tend to send advertising, but there is a world of difference between getting that sort of bulk mail -- that I might not want -- from getting the masses of fraudulent and deceptive mail from people with whom I have no relationship at all. At least when it is a company with which I have a history, there is a reasonable chance of fixing the problem. Hence, debates about how it gets fixed are a matter of quibbling, in comparison to the larger and strategic issues of controlling spam from the really bad actors. Most public-service MLs, on the other hand, will not be able to pay. There are two different lines of response to this: 1. Of course we all want to be nicer to organizations that have an altruistic quality about them. Unfortunately, we need to be careful about defining this special class and defining their special benefits, lest we wind up giving benefits to people and activities that are not really altruistic. 2. These altruistic activities pay for other utilities just like the rest of us. Why must they be given special pricing (e.g., free service) in this case? These are competing points. So, once again, we are faced with inherent difficulty in any effort to resolve them. Again, it might give one a nicely warm feeling to claim that things are much simpler than I am describing and that they is easy to resolve,
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
At 5:53 PM -0800 2006-03-03, Dave Crocker wrote: AOL creates a specialized, rather expensive process that it provides for free, to ensure delivery of a class of mail. Unless you mean all mail when you say class of mail, then no -- not really. So far as I know, they did not have any certified mail type of solution that they made available to the paying spammers. The operation of this mechanism is pure overhead for AOL. Worse, it is distinct to AOL. To the extent any other receive-side ISP operates such a service, it is entirely independent of AOL. That is, anyone wanting on these special lists must to special things for each of these lists. Very few other operators in the world have attempted to run an enforced whitelist solution of the sort that AOL has developed. I disagree that this was necessary on AOL's part, but to the extent that it was/has been, this was just one of the prices they paid for being the biggest bully on the block. In essence, they are an attractive nuisance, and they may have to defend against that more vigorously than other providers might. So along comes a few companies who are trying to find ways to let receive-side ISPs outsource the job of assuring that trustable bulk mail is, in fact, trusted. (That is, the receiver wants this stuff and these services are provding ways to assure that they get it.) That's the key point I don't believe. I don't trust net-nanny companies to properly operate an IP-address based black list, nor do I trust that these kinds of operations will remain secure even if they could be properly operated. See http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/01/saudi_arabia_joins_l.html and http://www.boingboing.net/censorroute.html. Goodmail is just going to sell out to the highest bidder(s). Even if they don't do it today, they'll get bought by someone who will. And then everyone who built Goodmail into their system will have given spammers a level of unequaled access. Or perhaps it is my unwillingness to take *possible* mishandling of such a service as being the same as *definite* mishandling. Perhaps it is just that I have yet to see a capability that was worth having that could not also be abused. There's an old saying about power and corruption. Through these types of deals, Goodmail will have unprecedented power over the mailboxes of hundreds of millions or even billions of people, and that kind of power is guaranteed to be absolutely corrupting. But then I guess you'd label me a privacy nut and go off and implement such systems anyway. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 LOPSA member since December 2005. See http://www.lopsa.org/. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
At 5:53 PM -0800 2006-03-03, Dave Crocker wrote: So along comes a few companies who are trying to find ways to let receive-side ISPs outsource the job of assuring that trustable bulk mail is, in fact, trusted. (That is, the receiver wants this stuff and these services are provding ways to assure that they get it.) This situation is rife with cost and revenue externalities. Moreover, it is not even opt-out -- it is mandatory for all AOL users. Fundamentally, these are the two worst aspects of spam, and by extension virtually all types of abuse. Your sole protection here is that AOL and Goodmail both promise that they will play nice. History teaches us that anyone in this kind of situation who promises not to abuse their power is, well ... a fool. Let's look again at the general situation. X will provide guaranteed access to their members for the benefit of Y and the customers of Y, and in return X is paid money by Y. Substitute AOL for X and Goodmail for Y, and you get precisely the situation they are moving forward with, regardless of all possible complaints -- see http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181500372. Now, substitute families in Eastern Europe for X, and pimps for Y, and you get sex slaves who are forced to perform as prostitutes. And we all know what kind of promises are made to these people before they are taken from their families. AOL is making their members bend over and drop their pants, and then will look the other way when Goodmail comes along with clients who pay good money to abuse those members. That's it, plain and simple. Okay, so maybe this paid spam stuff isn't quite as bad as being turned into a sex slave, but the mechanisms are precisely the same -- your sole protection is the word of the people who are making their members accessible, and the word of the people who would be using (abusing) those members. If AOL wants to convince anyone that this is actually a real benefit, they need to do at least two things: 1. Remove the cost/revenue externalities. If any money is to be paid for the benefit of guaranteed access to members mailboxes, it should be the members themselves. AOL should get increased revenue through making their members happier, and therefore keeping existing members for longer, and getting newer members faster than they had in the past. 2. Make the feature opt-in instead of opt-out or mandatory. If it really is good for members, they will flock to it in droves. Now, if they really want to benefit their members (and indirectly, benefit themselves), they need to give those members a way to charge considerably more than the usual and customary fee, if they should be hit with a particularly heinous paid spam -- a factor of a thousand, or more. This would force the senders to seriously think twice about abusing their enhanced access. Of course, AOL would never do this and Goodmail would never agree to this, because the paid spammers would refuse to get whacked with those kinds of potential charges. You will note that AOL is promising that their new policy won't hurt non-profit organizations, because they will pay for the costs incurred. But this places the one party most likely to abuse the system as the one party that decides who they will be nice to -- yet another situation ripe for abuse. AOL gets to decide who is a worthy non-profit organization, and everyone else can just kiss their ass. Take a look at what the police in Kenya are doing, and what the government in Darfur has turned a blind eye towards, if you need current examples of what happens when there isn't anyone around to watch the watchers. AOL hasn't quite gone that far (at least not yet, so far as we know), but they're certainly going down that path. And they're lying through their teeth about the real reasons why and what will happen as a result, and they're going to force all their members to go along with this idea whether they like it or not. And AOL will be just the first in a long line of companies to jack into this new and exceptionally profitable revenue stream. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 LOPSA member since December 2005. See http://www.lopsa.org/. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ:
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
Brad Knowles wrote: At 5:53 PM -0800 2006-03-03, Dave Crocker wrote: AOL creates a specialized, rather expensive process that it provides for free, to ensure delivery of a class of mail. Unless you mean all mail when you say class of mail, then no -- not really. So far as I know, they did not have any certified mail type of solution that they made available to the paying spammers. 1. The effort it takes to get on the EWL and stay on it is substantial. It therefore creates a significant division between all mail and mail from folks on the EWL. 2. paying spammers is nicely inflammatory, but factually incorrect, according to most definitions of spam. In terms of the actual claimed goal for these types of services, in fact, it is completely and totally factually incorrect. The claim is that the mechanism is intended for mail that receivers really want to get. Mail I don't want is the classic form of the most extreme definition of spam. Whether actual operation matches actual goal is always a good question, of course. For that, one needs to look at the criteria to qualify for the program, its enforcement at the admission phase, and its enforcement after admission. The operation of this mechanism is pure overhead for AOL. Worse, it is distinct to AOL. To the extent any other receive-side ISP operates such a service, it is entirely independent of AOL. That is, anyone wanting on these special lists must to special things for each of these lists. Very few other operators in the world have attempted to run an enforced whitelist solution of the sort that AOL has developed. That is one of my points. I disagree that this was necessary on AOL's part, but to the extent that I don't recall saying it was necessary for AOL. I DID say that the per-ISP EWL model does not scale across ISPs. So along comes a few companies who are trying to find ways to let receive-side ISPs outsource the job of assuring that trustable bulk mail is, in fact, trusted. (That is, the receiver wants this stuff and these services are provding ways to assure that they get it.) That's the key point I don't believe. I don't trust net-nanny companies to properly operate an IP-address based black list, nor do I trust that these kinds of operations will remain secure even if they could be properly operated. We all have different biases. What we choose to trust, in the absence of empirical data, is a matter of personal choice. See http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/01/saudi_arabia_joins_l.html and http://www.boingboing.net/censorroute.html. It is very much in vogue, these days, to assert such choices and claim that they really are based on fact. However any reasonable analysis of the basis for the choice turns out to have nothing to do with legitimate empirical data that is directly relevant to the conclusion. More often that not a) there is no data at all, or b) the data cited are irrelevant, though possibly catchy and inflammatory. Goodmail is just going to sell out to the highest bidder(s). Goodmail has published criteria. That makes one phase of analysis straightforward. They have no track-record. That makes the second phase of analysis a matter of pure conjecture. If one does not find that their published criteria automatically unacceptable, then your statement is a prediction based on no data. Hence it really translates into: Nobody who tries to make a profit ever has any integrity. (Combined with: The market has no corrective forces against companies that are in the integrity business but that, themselves, have no integrity except to seek profit.) Even if they don't do it today, they'll get bought by someone who will. And then everyone who built Goodmail into their system will have given spammers a level of unequaled access. An argument that entropy will eventually convert the entire universe into pure randomness does not mean that we cannot find and enjoy productive coherence in the intervening eons. As for myself, I enjoyed my dinner last night, in spite of knowing the the universe will eventually end. In other words: even if you are right, the key flaw in your analysis is that it pertains to the indeterminate future, rather than any possible immediate benefit. There's an old saying about power and corruption. True. That is why a) it is important to have real competition, and b) it is important to make sure that there are other forces to protect important categories of mail. Or rather: that is why it is important to make sure that these new services provided *added* services, rather than that they become the basis for *all* service. Ignoring nit-picking about the formal definition of goodmail's certified mail, versus the formal definition of the term certified for postal mail, it is worth noting that both provide an *incremental*
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
Brad Knowles wrote: This situation is rife with cost and revenue externalities. Moreover, it is not even opt-out -- it is mandatory for all AOL users. All sorts of things are mandatory for all AOL users. For example, the entire AOL spam detection and filtering mechanism is mandatory. If AOL users find any of the mandatory features unacceptable, they should take their business elsewhere. If they don't do that, then who are we to be parental and tell them that a particular feature is unacceptable for them? Your sole protection here is that AOL and Goodmail both promise that they will play nice. History teaches us that anyone in this kind of situation who promises not to abuse their power is, well ... a fool. That's why you should note the constant community vigilance requirement I stated in the other note I just sent. It is also why I am a big fan of real competition, since it provides a form of community vigilance. Let's look again at the general situation. X will provide guaranteed access to their members for the benefit of Y and the customers of Y, and in return X is paid money by Y. Substitute AOL for X and Goodmail for Y, and you get precisely the situation they are moving forward with, regardless of all possible complaints -- see http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181500372. The regardless of all possible complaints is exactly wrong, according to the published rules of operation. A complaint rate from recipients determines continued participation in the program. Oh. You mean regardless of complaints from external lobbying groups who are not AOL customers and who have so far been showing a really excellent skill at invoking hyperbole and ignoring facts. Now, substitute families in Eastern Europe for X, and pimps for Y, and you get sex slaves who are forced to perform as prostitutes. And we all know what kind of promises are made to these people before they are taken from their families. You believe this substitution process represents the application of facts and logic? For starters, note the deficiencies in the abstract model your are using. If AOL wants to convince anyone that this is actually a real benefit, they need to do at least two things: You claim to know what everyone in the world requires for convincing? I'd be interested in hearing your basis for making these claims on behalf of everyone in the world, or even everyone who is an AOL customer. Now, if they really want to benefit their members (and indirectly, benefit themselves), they need to give those members a way to charge And the nice thing about a free market is that you are free to build a business that does exactly whatever you are certain everyone requires. Take a look at what the police in Kenya are doing, and what the government in Darfur has turned a blind eye towards, if you need current examples of what happens when there isn't anyone around to watch the watchers. Since the world is a large and diverse place, it is always possible to find an example of pretty much any behavior one wishes to describe. Using that example as proof of the inevitability of the behavior is simply not valid, because it also means that there are always counter-examples. Both cannot be inevitable to generalize. AOL hasn't quite gone that far No kidding. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking http://bbiw.net -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
At 7:36 AM -0800 2006-03-04, Dave Crocker wrote: 1. The effort it takes to get on the EWL and stay on it is substantial. We know this. This is why we created FAQ 3.42. It therefore creates a significant division between all mail and mail from folks on the EWL. Let's go back to your original statement: | AOL creates a specialized, rather expensive process that it provides for | free, to ensure delivery of a class of mail. The operation of this | mechanism is pure overhead for AOL. Worse, it is distinct to AOL. To | the extent any other receive-side ISP operates such a service, it is | entirely independent of AOL. That is, anyone wanting on these special | lists must to special things for each of these lists. No one required AOL to create such an enhanced white list system, or to operate it in a manner that is so overhead-intensive. The enhanced white list system that they've run in the past has been applicable to all mail with volumes over some pretty small amounts (which is why many mailing list operators run into this issue, and why we created FAQ 3.42). This is not true for the kinds of systems that you're talking about -- those are oriented towards commercial bulk mailers who can pay for guaranteed access and are not suitable for the broader community of not-for-profit mailing list operators. The claim is that the mechanism is intended for mail that receivers really want to get. Mail I don't want is the classic form of the most extreme definition of spam. Sounds like the I-Can-Spam law to me. I mean, all good spammers actually give you a way to unsubscribe, right? Whether actual operation matches actual goal is always a good question, of course. For that, one needs to look at the criteria to qualify for the program, its enforcement at the admission phase, and its enforcement after admission. That's closing the barn door after we've let the horse run out into a firestorm that we know would be likely to happen. I DID say that the per-ISP EWL model does not scale across ISPs. True enough, but the I paid my money so I get guaranteed access to your mailbox model of Goodmail is not an appropriate solution to this problem. See http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/01/saudi_arabia_joins_l.html and http://www.boingboing.net/censorroute.html. It is very much in vogue, these days, to assert such choices and claim that they really are based on fact. However any reasonable analysis of the basis for the choice turns out to have nothing to do with legitimate empirical data that is directly relevant to the conclusion. I think that BoingBoing has some pretty clear proof of what's being done to them, although they can only speculate as to why. They certainly know what's being done to their readership and that this classification is unjust and unfair, and they know a fair amount about how to work around such stupid procedures. Do you have any proof of anything they have said on this subject that is not accurate? Let's generalize this a bit -- BoingBoing is a special case, but we know that there have been many such cases in the past, where pages were blocked by badly operated web filtering systems, and where the operators themselves admitted their incompetence and reversed the action. Do you have any proof that none of these things have ever happened? Can you provide any such proof, in either event? If one does not find that their published criteria automatically unacceptable, then your statement is a prediction based on no data. It's based on human history. They have a huge financial incentive to sell access to those mailboxes to the highest bidder. Where are the checks and balances on this process? Hence it really translates into: Nobody who tries to make a profit ever has any integrity. There are some. But they are few and far between. And the larger they are, the less likely they are to have any integrity at the corporate level, even if many of the people they employ may have a high level of personal integrity. An argument that entropy will eventually convert the entire universe into pure randomness does not mean that we cannot find and enjoy productive coherence in the intervening eons. As for myself, I enjoyed my dinner last night, in spite of knowing the the universe will eventually end. True enough, but when we see cases where people are whipping up a whole bunch of entropy and putting things in dangerous proximity to that, should we not speak up? If vandals were to take down every street sign and signal, and then you saw a bunch of old ladies walking down the sidewalk towards a street where a bunch of hooligans are known to drive their cars recklessly and with complete disregard for their own life or safety much less anyone else's, do we not have a moral imperative
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
At 7:58 AM -0800 2006-03-04, Dave Crocker wrote: All sorts of things are mandatory for all AOL users. For example, the entire AOL spam detection and filtering mechanism is mandatory. Actually, it's not. You can opt out of the spam detection and filtering mechanism, if you so choose. I don't think you can opt out of the paid spammer solution from Goodmail. If AOL users find any of the mandatory features unacceptable, they should take their business elsewhere. Also agreed, but as we both know, that's unlikely to happen for most of the AOL users, regardless of what AOL chooses to do to them. If they don't do that, then who are we to be parental and tell them that a particular feature is unacceptable for them? When a particular feature sets a heinously bad example for the others to follow? That's why you should note the constant community vigilance requirement I stated in the other note I just sent. But that vigilance isn't going to be there. Goodmail's operation is kept secret, locked behind a private door. Same for AOL. And if we're not going to stand up for the AOL users against the abuse that AOL is going to do to them (or allow others to do while they are paid to look the other way), then who is? It is also why I am a big fan of real competition, since it provides a form of community vigilance. Agreed, but such competition is not going to be found. Not at Goodmail, not at AOL. Oh. You mean regardless of complaints from external lobbying groups who are not AOL customers and who have so far been showing a really excellent skill at invoking hyperbole and ignoring facts. No, I mean the only people who are speaking up on behalf of AOL users who are being categorically lied to and hoodwinked by their ISP. Or do we need to get into quotes from Rev. Martin Niemoller? If AOL wants to convince anyone that this is actually a real benefit, they need to do at least two things: You claim to know what everyone in the world requires for convincing? All the complaints I've seen so far would be answered by these two steps, so far as I can tell. So, yes -- I'm pretty convinced that these are the two necessary steps. Since the world is a large and diverse place, it is always possible to find an example of pretty much any behavior one wishes to describe. Using that example as proof of the inevitability of the behavior is simply not valid, because it also means that there are always counter-examples. The problem is that human history is rife with examples of this kind of abuse by those in power of those who have no power, for as long as human history has existed. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 LOPSA member since December 2005. See http://www.lopsa.org/. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
I don't think you can opt out of the paid spammer solution from Goodmail. Brad, I had hoped that there might be a basis for some constructive dialogue. However you persist in using hyperbole like paid spammer solution, and seem to be taking in none of the points I have been raising, except as sounding boards for repeating your assertions that abuse is certain. Hyperbole is wonderfully satisfying to the person uttering it, and utterly destructive for any serious dialogue. So, I think we are done. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking http://bbiw.net -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
Dave Crocker wrote: Brad, I had hoped that there might be a basis for some constructive dialogue. However you persist in using hyperbole like paid spammer solution, and seem to be taking in none of the points I have been raising, except as sounding boards for repeating your assertions that abuse is certain. Hyperbole is wonderfully satisfying to the person uttering it, and utterly destructive for any serious dialogue. So, I think we are done. Can we get this put into a FAQ. :-) -Jim P. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
Can we get this put into a FAQ. Forget About Quasimo? Never mind. LOL Ed -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
At 1:40 PM -0800 2006-03-04, Dave Crocker wrote: I had hoped that there might be a basis for some constructive dialogue. As had I. However you persist in using hyperbole like paid spammer solution, and seem to be taking in none of the points I have been raising, except as sounding boards for repeating your assertions that abuse is certain. I'm sure you won't be surprised if I don't see it as hyperbole, but merely pointing out where this road is clearly headed. To my astonishment, you seem to be interested in doing nothing except acting as a corporate shill. So, I think we are done. Agreed, nothing more is going to come out of this. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 LOPSA member since December 2005. See http://www.lopsa.org/. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
To my astonishment, you seem to be interested in doing nothing except acting as a corporate shill. I was raised during a time in which parents were told to distinguish between saying to their kids you are doing a bad thing versus you are a bad person. Does this have any rules about ad hominem attacks? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking http://bbiw.net -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
Can we get this put into a FAQ. Forget About Quasimo? Never mind. LOL Ed -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
At 3:58 PM -0800 2006-03-04, Dave Crocker wrote: To my astonishment, you seem to be interested in doing nothing except acting as a corporate shill. I was raised during a time in which parents were told to distinguish between saying to their kids you are doing a bad thing versus you are a bad person. Does this have any rules about ad hominem attacks? Did I actually call you a corporate shill? Did I say that's what you're actually doing? I think maybe you skipped over a few words in there that should leave you plenty of room to prove that you may be creating the appearance of acting like a corporate shill, but in fact you are doing something totally different and the problem is that there is a misperception that is being created. I can't say that I take this level of care with everything I write, but for that line in particular I carefully wrote, re-wrote, and re-wrote it again, many times over, before I sent that message. I've had a great deal of respect for you over the years, and that's why I've been so astonished to see you (of all people) defending the likes of AOL on this subject -- they may have still been good guys when I was working there and when Jay Levitt sent me (on two days notice) to the conference where we met for the first time, but those times are long since gone, and AOL has been a creator of their own evil empire for quite a while. Yes, there are some people there who have a certain degree of personal integrity (e.g., Carl Hutzler), but that is in spite of what the company has become and not because of it. I know too many people who used to work for the company and who can go on ad nauseum about the evil things that were done while they were around, and ended up being major contributors to their ultimately leaving. I have my own first-hand experience, and I have a number of former co-workers who have related their own first-hand experience. There is nothing you or anyone else can say that can convince me otherwise. Okay, Google and Microsoft may be worse, but that doesn't mean that AOL is Snow White. It's more like they're all different flavours of Teflon-coated cookware, and while some may be somewhat worse than others, they're all major sources of carcinogens and contribute all other sorts of horrible nastiness to the biosphere -- a fact which DuPont knew back in the 1950s and which they contrived to hide from the public. Given what I know of you and your history, the only conclusion I can come to is that maybe you've been paid by AOL or Goodmail as a consultant, and therefore you come to this discussion carrying a certain amount and type of baggage that prevents you from seeing the forest for the trees that you helped to plant. I'm not assuming malice here where I can clearly see other factors that are much more likely reasons for your apparent behaviour, but that doesn't change the perception of what it is that I'm seeing. Please, give me something I can hold onto to show that you haven't sold us all out. Right now, I'm not seeing anything, but I'd love to be proved wrong. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 LOPSA member since December 2005. See http://www.lopsa.org/. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
Did I actually call you a corporate shill? Did I say that's what you're actually doing? yes. d/ ps. Given how careless and aggressive you have been in this exchange, so far, please don't try to resort to a game of semantics. Your language was plain and direct. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking http://bbiw.net -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking http://bbiw.net -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
You understand that and I understand that, but I don't think it's easy to grasp from the pages whose URLs you posted. What _is_ easy to grasp is that bulk emailers who have been getting a certain level of QoS for free are now being asked to pay for it, and they're upset. Stinks of special interest to high heaven. Let me see if I understand the model: AOL creates a specialized, rather expensive process that it provides for free, to ensure delivery of a class of mail. The operation of this mechanism is pure overhead for AOL. Worse, it is distinct to AOL. To the extent any other receive-side ISP operates such a service, it is entirely independent of AOL. That is, anyone wanting on these special lists must to special things for each of these lists. So along comes a few companies who are trying to find ways to let receive-side ISPs outsource the job of assuring that trustable bulk mail is, in fact, trusted. (That is, the receiver wants this stuff and these services are provding ways to assure that they get it.) These companies offer mechanisms that will work across multiple receive-side services and they all all charge the sender for the special handling that is needed to bypass most or all of the receive-side filters. (Just to nit-pick, EWL membership does not bypass all filters, while a Goodmail token will, as I understand it.) So one of these services lands some strategic relationships and makes a splash announcing them. Somehow, this value-added service is heralded as subversive, in spite of the fact that pretty much all other communication services have levels of service. I must be missing something, here. Maybe it's the hyperbole. Or perhaps it is my unwillingness to take *possible* mishandling of such a service as being the same as *definite* mishandling. Perhaps it is just that I have yet to see a capability that was worth having that could not also be abused. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking http://bbiw.net -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
At 3:07 PM +0900 2006-03-02, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: *sigh* I see lots of explanation of why this is going to hurt legitimate bulk emailers there, but ... isn't that obvious? OTOH, very little about how it hurts the typical AOL customer. It hurts them because the current whitelist system will be dismantled, and any AOL user wanting to communicate with anyone in the outside world via mailing lists will be much less likely to be able to do so. If you were suddenly told that you could no longer communicate with any kind of reliability with most of the people in the world, would you not be hurt? In fact, it's not crystal clear to me that it does, on average. Remember, this is the same class of user that you denigrate as if you think that's stupid AOL customer behavior, let me tell you it get MUCH worse than that. Maybe it's worth it to such users to lose a few mailings from non-profits in order to instill more discipline in the less professional half of bulk-emailing businesses. Yes, AOL users can be extraordinarily dumb. But does that mean that we have to hurt all of them, just because of the stupidity of some? From the point of view of the professional economist (that's me), pay per mail (even pay-per-byte) is a concept that should be seriously considered. It's obvious that there are problems with managing the payments, that it will be expensive---but both the monopoly USPS and the fairly competitive courier services manage such businesses. Internet e-mail is a fundamentally different kind of beast. You can't make comparisons with the USPS, UPS, FedEx, or any other carriers of physical mail. This isn't to say that we should not be exploring any kind of pay-to-play schemes, but whatever pay-to-play schemes we should be investigating should be under the complete control of the user in question, and not imposed on them by a service provider. If you want to charge me $50 per e-mail I send you, you should have that right. Of course, I would have the right to prohibit you from sending any e-mail to me or any mailing list I control or have influence over, so that they would not be required to make that payment. But you should not be forced by your provider to charge certain people extra money in order to have guaranteed access to your mail box. That said, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the move to pay-per-mail is bad for everybody (even for AOL and Goodmail in the long run). In fact, I do believe that. And I believe it's clearly socially detrimental as implemented by Goodmail. But I would like to see the case made more strongly, because I know a lot of business people and economists who _won't_. Then help us make the case more strongly. Contact the EFF and the other supporters of the website I mentioned above, and get them to try to explain things better -- to you, and to the rest of the world. If you can come up with anything more yourself, please contribute that work back to the effort. BradWhile I definitely believe that they are right, and I Brad do have personal experience with how the AOL marketing Brad department works, I believe that these efforts are unlikely Brad to be successful -- at best, I fear that they may only Brad slightly delay things. Imminent death of the 'net predicted! Film at 11. No, not imminent death. Just one more step down the road towards making George Orwell's greatest fears come to life. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 LOPSA member since December 2005. See http://www.lopsa.org/. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
Brad == Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brad At 3:07 PM +0900 2006-03-02, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: *sigh* I see lots of explanation of why this is going to hurt legitimate bulk emailers there, but ... isn't that obvious? OTOH, very little about how it hurts the typical AOL customer. Brad It hurts them because [...]. You understand that and I understand that, but I don't think it's easy to grasp from the pages whose URLs you posted. What _is_ easy to grasp is that bulk emailers who have been getting a certain level of QoS for free are now being asked to pay for it, and they're upset. Stinks of special interest to high heaven. Of course, especially for the altruistic lists (eg, the cancer victims' group), that special interest is going to be supported by highly motivated users, and get bad publicity for AOL. But I doubt if that's enough to get AOL to turn back. Brad If you were suddenly told that you could no longer Brad communicate with any kind of reliability with most of the Brad people in the world, would you not be hurt? Sure, but I don't believe that statement, and I don't think AOL users will believe it. You and I know that possible reliability is 6-sigma or so. Mail simply does not need to ever get lost barring a nuclear strike on your MX. But we also know that there's a social system and broken providers that drives a wedge between possible and what we actually experience. Without our knowledge, and given that their providers are not going to accept the blame, nor blame the users if possible to avoid it, many users will accept the excuse the system as a whole is unreliable, and will believe AOL when they claim that Goodmail improves reliability for many of their lists. They won't believe predictions that reliability will go through the floor, at least not until they see them come true. Brad Yes, AOL users can be extraordinarily dumb. But does Brad that mean that we have to hurt all of them, just because of Brad the stupidity of some? It's not *us* that are doing the hurting, though. They're doing it to themselves, just like the victims of any fraud. The only thing you can do to reduce fraud in the long run is to properly educate the victims. My point is that I see education of people who are already aware of the knife at their throats, the bulk emailers. I don't see education of the people that AOL will listen to, namely their users. Brad Internet e-mail is a fundamentally different kind of Brad beast. You can't make comparisons with the USPS, UPS, Brad FedEx, or any other carriers of physical mail. Economics is the science that compares apples with oranges. Of course I can make the comparison. More to the point, the third parties that I mention already are doing so, and they are recommending and even making policy based on those comparisons. Brad whatever pay-to-play schemes we should be investigating Brad should be under the complete control of the user in Brad question, and not imposed on them by a service provider. It's not imposition; it's a measure of the value of the service to the users. (Unless AOL can accept the mail and bill you later, and successfully sue if you don't pay.) As long as you think of it in terms of imposition by the SP, you're going to have trouble convincing people who are reasonably satisfied with the SP. Their satisfaction levels will go down as the costs go up, and that's as it should be. But if the SP makes a reasonably convincing case that it reflects their cost of doing business, the users are going to say to us, if you're so smart, why aren't you running a better service? Brad But you should not be forced by your provider to Brad charge certain people extra money in order to have Brad guaranteed access to your mail box. You are not, and I am not. We can always change providers. That possibility _does_ need protection, it's not a natural law. Ie, there needs to be a class of provider that is a common carrier, that just transports packets for money, and those providers need to form a global internet, as a subset of the Internet. They need to be protected from a cartel of AOL-like providers that would try to Balkanize, and thus eliminate, that 'net. And they need to be accessible to retail customers like us. Beyond that, it's not clear to me what really is needed from society's point of view. Brad No, not imminent death. Just one more step down the Brad road towards making George Orwell's greatest fears come to Brad life. Brad Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a Brad little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Brad Safety. That can be spelled much more succinctly: AOL. Is it our job to protect their Liberty and Safety? That said, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the move to pay-per-mail is bad for everybody. Brad
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
At 9:23 PM -0500 2006-02-28, Ed wrote: The answer to this is simple. If AOL tries that stupidity with the rest of the ISP's of the world, then we / they should simply blacklist AOL. I know we will if it comes to that. AOL may be the proverbial 10,000lb gorilla, but the second they start charging to deliver normal email to their customers, the rest of the world should simply stop sending it to them. End of problem, AOL will either rethink or lose a ton [more] customers. Similar things have been said in the past when AOL has done stupid things, and yet they still survive, and even thrive. Same for Microsoft. Or the War Criminal in the White House. Frankly, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth by everyone else, I don't see any of these situations changing any time soon. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 LOPSA member since December 2005. See http://www.lopsa.org/. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
At 11:57 AM +0100 2006-03-01, Brad Knowles wrote: Frankly, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth by everyone else, I don't see any of these situations changing any time soon. If anyone wants to see a more completely laid out and fully explained discussion of why Goodmail is such a bad idea, please see http://www2.dearaol.com/faq and http://www2.dearaol.com/blog. While I definitely believe that they are right, and I do have personal experience with how the AOL marketing department works, I believe that these efforts are unlikely to be successful -- at best, I fear that they may only slightly delay things. However, I do hope that I can be proved wrong in this case. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 LOPSA member since December 2005. See http://www.lopsa.org/. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
Brad == Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brad If anyone wants to see a more completely laid out and Brad fully explained discussion of why Goodmail is such a bad Brad idea, please see http://www2.dearaol.com/faq and Brad http://www2.dearaol.com/blog. *sigh* I see lots of explanation of why this is going to hurt legitimate bulk emailers there, but ... isn't that obvious? OTOH, very little about how it hurts the typical AOL customer. In fact, it's not crystal clear to me that it does, on average. Remember, this is the same class of user that you denigrate as if you think that's stupid AOL customer behavior, let me tell you it get MUCH worse than that. Maybe it's worth it to such users to lose a few mailings from non-profits in order to instill more discipline in the less professional half of bulk-emailing businesses. From the point of view of the professional economist (that's me), pay per mail (even pay-per-byte) is a concept that should be seriously considered. It's obvious that there are problems with managing the payments, that it will be expensive---but both the monopoly USPS and the fairly competitive courier services manage such businesses. And it's easy to see that it will have some disciplining effect on the gray-zone bulk emailers.[1] That said, I'm perfectly willing to believe that the move to pay-per-mail is bad for everybody (even for AOL and Goodmail in the long run). In fact, I do believe that. And I believe it's clearly socially detrimental as implemented by Goodmail. But I would like to see the case made more strongly, because I know a lot of business people and economists who _won't_. Brad While I definitely believe that they are right, and I Brad do have personal experience with how the AOL marketing Brad department works, I believe that these efforts are unlikely Brad to be successful -- at best, I fear that they may only Brad slightly delay things. Imminent death of the 'net predicted! Film at 11. Footnotes: [1] For example, I've recently begun to receive a lot of invitations from people I don't know to speak at conferences at my own expense. Some of these are almost worth considering, but really, I'd like them all to go away. And some of them are sufficiently far from my field or the fields of plausible sources for carefully selected advertisers that they're really spam in spirit, even if the list came from an organization where I opted in on the occasional mailings. -- School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of TsukubaTennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can do free software business; ask what your business can do for free software. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
At 4:56 PM -0800 2006-02-23, Dave Crocker wrote: From what I can tell, the Goodmail technology does not work through a mailing list. From what I can tell, limited its application to transaction mail will keep this from being a problem. I worked at AOL for over two years, as the first Internet Mail Operations person they ever hired, and left as the Sr. Internet Mail Systems Administrator for AOL. I know how their marketing department works. On the one hand, you have an old creaky system that only ever kinda-semi-sorta-somewhat works on the best days, and costs a boatload of money, people, and time to maintain. On the other hand, you have a system where they get a share of the paid spam that goes through the system, via Goodmail -- a method that they have said will completely by-pass all anti-spam checks, and guarantees that the paid spammer in question will have unhindered access to your mailbox. Which one do you honestly think that they are going to choose? -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 LOPSA member since December 2005. See http://www.lopsa.org/. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
At 9:08 AM -0500 2006-02-24, Jonathan Dill wrote: If you only have a few people on your mailing list, probably nothing, but if you cross a certain threshhold--I'm guessing either number of messages sent from you, or number of spam complaints--AOL just starts rejecting your e-mail, and you have to sign up for their Enhanced Whitelist service, which is apparently being phased out in favor of Goodmail. They have since claimed that they won't phase out the existing whitelist mechanism, but I worked at AOL for two years in the Internet Mail Operations group, and I know how their marketing department works. They may dilly-dally for a while, and keep the existing whitelist mechanism in place for a while, but the amount of money that they're going to get paid as their share of what Goodmail sends to their users as paid spam, that's just going to be too big of an attraction for them. So, bit-by-bit, I am convinced that they will disassemble the whitelist mechanism -- people will get reassigned, budgets will get cut, and it will wind up going the way of the Dodo bird. Sometime last year, AOL just started rejecting our e-mail, and I had to register them for the Enhanced Whitelist program so the e-mail would go to AOL subscribers. One thing that did do is that I started receiving e-mail from AOL every time someone reported the mailing as spam and then I would unsubscribe them from the list. People sign up for the list, confirm their subscription, and then turn around and complain about getting e-mail from us, and then when I take them off the list, they complain that they should not have been removed, I just don't get it. I got first-hand experience as to how stupid most AOL users are during the time I was working there. Believe me, you're interacting with the intelligent ones -- the really dumb ones can't figure out how to send or receive e-mail at all. Since Enhanced Whitelist is supposedly being phased out and we are already on that program, I am wondering if AOL will just start rejecting our e-mail again unless we sign up for Goodmail. Maybe not immediately, but in the long-run, if you want to get e-mail to an AOL recipient for any reason, you're going to have to pay them money -- one way or another. This is a potential cash cow that has been ignored for too long, and once the advertising and marketing vampires get their teeth into this, it's game over, man. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 LOPSA member since December 2005. See http://www.lopsa.org/. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
Sally K Scheer wrote: I'm not quite sure what you've just written here. What is AOL blocking? If you only have a few people on your mailing list, probably nothing, but if you cross a certain threshhold--I'm guessing either number of messages sent from you, or number of spam complaints--AOL just starts rejecting your e-mail, and you have to sign up for their Enhanced Whitelist service, which is apparently being phased out in favor of Goodmail. Maybe this is not really an issue unless you have a large mailing list. My concern was that AOL could start looking at Precedence: list / bulk in the e-mail headers, and then numbers do not matter. I have a client with an opt-in only newsletter that goes out monthly, you have to go to their website, subscribe to the list, and then confirm your subscription. Or you could fill out a paper form at one of their expos which clearly states that if you want to be on the newsletter mailing list, you should fill in your e-mail address. The list currently has about 45,000 subscribers, about 15,000 of those are from AOL, and as many as 100-200 people may sign up for or leave the list in an average month. Originally, it was more like 55,000, but when I took this on, I tuned the bounce settings to be more appropriate for a monthly announce only mailing list, peoples' bounce status was just getting reset too quickly. Sometime last year, AOL just started rejecting our e-mail, and I had to register them for the Enhanced Whitelist program so the e-mail would go to AOL subscribers. One thing that did do is that I started receiving e-mail from AOL every time someone reported the mailing as spam and then I would unsubscribe them from the list. People sign up for the list, confirm their subscription, and then turn around and complain about getting e-mail from us, and then when I take them off the list, they complain that they should not have been removed, I just don't get it. There is already a clear Unsubscribe link in our e-mail messages and we don't make people confirm unsubscription. It would be nice if AOL would give people a Unsubscribe button so hopefully people would use that instead of just being lazy and clicking the Spam button, the headers by Mailman already include the necessary information to do that. I would like to make it harder for people to subscribe and make people agree to some kind of Terms of Service but the client is afraid that will scare off technophobes, and I think there is a point to that. Since Enhanced Whitelist is supposedly being phased out and we are already on that program, I am wondering if AOL will just start rejecting our e-mail again unless we sign up for Goodmail. Jonathan -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
If you only have a few people on your mailing list, probably nothing, but if you cross a certain threshhold--I'm guessing either number of messages sent from you, or number of spam complaints--AOL just starts rejecting your e-mail, and you have to sign up for their Enhanced Whitelist service, which is apparently being phased out in favor of Goodmail. This is explicitly what they are saying they will NOT be doing. They will continue their current white list and enhanced white list services. the EWL is probably what solves your problem. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking http://bbiw.net -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
Thanks, I just found this article, which is interesting reading... If anybody has other relevant links, please let me know, I may put a page on my web page or at least bookmark them in my furl.net bookmarks. http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060208WhitelistStaysAOLsGoodmailDance.html Dave Crocker wrote: If you only have a few people on your mailing list, probably nothing, but if you cross a certain threshhold--I'm guessing either number of messages sent from you, or number of spam complaints--AOL just starts rejecting your e-mail, and you have to sign up for their Enhanced Whitelist service, which is apparently being phased out in favor of Goodmail. This is explicitly what they are saying they will NOT be doing. They will continue their current white list and enhanced white list services. the EWL is probably what solves your problem. d/ -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
I'm not quite sure what you've just written here. What is AOL blocking? Sally Scheer - Original Message - From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: mailman-users@python.org Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists? Has anyone talked about the changes planned by AOL, Yahoo! etc. to require certification via Goodmail or just be blocked? It's been beaten to death -- at this point I can't recall if here or on other lists. Essentially it means nothing. AOL backpedaled the next day saying it wasn't a press release, they aren't requiring anything, blah blah blah. Having looked over the earlier articles I could find in the archive, and given how sensitive mailing list operation is to various mail authentication techniques -- e.g., SPF really does break it -- and given that AOL did not quite say that they are not requiring anything, I thought it worth reciting the current policy, as both yahoo and aol are stating quite explicitly: Their use of Goodmail is for transaction messages, like purchase confirmations and is only an adjunct to both service providers' existing mechanisms. For example, AOL with be continuing both of its existing white-list services. From what I can tell, the Goodmail technology does not work through a mailing list. From what I can tell, limited its application to transaction mail will keep this from being a problem. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking http://bbiw.net -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/winerat%40villagecorner.com Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 2/17/2006 -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
[Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
Has anyone talked about the changes planned by AOL, Yahoo! etc. to require certification via Goodmail or just be blocked? http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3581301 http://www.goodmailsystems.com/ What will happen to a mailing list such as this one? Will AOL and Yahoo! users just be out of luck or have to get an e-mail account with another provider in order to receive mailing lists? Jonathan -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Jonathan Dill wrote: Has anyone talked about the changes planned by AOL, Yahoo! etc. to require certification via Goodmail or just be blocked? http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3581301 It's been beaten to death -- at this point I can't recall if here or on other lists. Essentially it means nothing. AOL backpedaled the next day saying it wasn't a press release, they aren't requiring anything, blah blah blah. == Chris Candreva -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- (914) 967-7816 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/ -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
Re: [Mailman-Users] Goodmail spells doom for mailing lists?
At 1:10 PM -0500 2006-02-17, Jonathan Dill wrote: Has anyone talked about the changes planned by AOL, Yahoo! etc. to require certification via Goodmail or just be blocked? We've discussed this subject on this list before. The EFF has published some good stuff, too. But unless you know of something that hasn't already been said before, I'm not sure that I'd continue to whip this decaying equine. -- Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 LOPSA member since December 2005. See http://www.lopsa.org/. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showamp;file=faq01.027.htp
