On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, jdow wrote:
> From: "Marc Perkel" <m...@perkel.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 2009/December/12 09:42
> >
> >Sahil Tandon wrote:
> >On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Marc Perkel wrote:
> >
> > Been using emailreg.org for several months now and it seems like a
> >really good white list. Anyone else using it?
> >
> >Not here. They charge a $20.00 administrative fee per registered
> >domain, purportedly to prevent "domain tasters". This is odd, given
> >their own criticism of other fee-charging white listing services:
> >
> >"The business model behind other whitelisting services pushes e-mail into
> >a "paid" model. Senders pay to be included in the lists mentioned above.
> >Of course, commercial providers have an incentive to enforce their
> >policies (otherwise people would stop using them), but only potentially
> >"bad" senders have an incentive to make use of such paid services. But
> >for the typical receiver (ie you) they do not help to reduce the risk of
> >losing mail for the majority of e-mail senders (eg customers and
> >partners). It would be counter-intuitive to require all senders to pay
> >one of the third parties just to let email through."
> >
> >My comment wasn't about their policies. I'm just saying that as a
> >list user, which is free, it works well. Quite frankly I think the
> >$20 charge to get rid of tasters might be effective.
>
> Somehow I think $20 is chump change, tip change, for the real spammers.
> {^_^}
Precisely my point.
--
Sahil Tandon <sa...@tandon.net>
