[IP] Independent verification of email delivery
Begin forwarded message:
From: Carl Malamud <carl@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: March 23, 2006 1:11:35 PM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Independent verification of email delivery
Dear Dave -
I'd like to step into the AOL/Goodmail/EFF/... controversy with my
two cents. First, some disclosure and background:
1. My employer, the Center for American Progress, is a signatory to the
DearAOL petition.
2. I have no financial stake in any of the parties involved: I don't
advise or invest in any of the spam-fighting solutions or indeed in any
companies in the Internet industry.
3. I have studied the spam issue extensively, having written 3 RFCs
on the topic with a proposed (but not widely adopted :) set of
mechanisms. The RFCs are 3865, 4095, and 4096.
It appears to me that the controversy surrounding the DearAOL campaign
is one of perceptions. Over 500 organizations are concerned
enough about the issue of email delivery that they signed the petition.
Regardless of the details, if such a large population is worried, the
issue needs to be addressed.
There appear to be some inter-related concerns:
1. The coalition doesn't like the fact that AOL takes a cut of the
Goodmail action. They argue that this is the beginning of a slippery
slope towards discrimination for a broad class of services. For
example,
if AOL can charge bulk e-mailers money for Goodmail, why couldn't
EarthLink
charge value-added providers, such as AOL, for GoodPackets? At issue is
the question of differential charges for differential service, with the
potential for descending into giving significantly worse service than is
now available, for some set of users.
2. On the other hand, I think it is unrealistic to think a publicly
traded company will publicly agree to automatically forgo revenue
opportunities. This is one of those issues where a broader public
interest is at stake, but one would not expect a profit-maximizing
private actor, particularly one with real challenges to their existing
revenue base, to take unilateral action.
3. One of the core issues seems to be, whether or not Goodmail
exists, if
mail for non-profits will continue to be delivered in a non-
discriminatory
fashion. There are two sides to this issue. On the one hand, AOL has
announced a program that says non-profits will always get their email
through:
http://press.aol.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=944§ion_id=14
On the other hand, Cindy Cohen states: "I'm skeptical of AOL's claims
that nothing will change for senders who don't choose Goodmail. My
concern is also based on my very real experience with Bonded Sender."
For me, this comes down to a battle of perceptions. And, living in
Washington, one of the things I've learned is that when many people
think there is an issue, it *is* an issue. One can argue all one wants
about the details, but the bottom line is that if that many people are
concerned there is, at the very least, a lack of communication.
Since this all comes down to trust, I've had a series of calls with
some of the players involved to try and understand the perceptions and
mis-perceptions. And, while not speaking for any of the parties
involved,
I would like to propose at least one possible solution: an independent
assessment service of email delivery patterns among many ISPs.
Here is how it might work:
1. Get some email-sending capability from a variety of
representative non-profits (e.g., get some non-profits to
allow a relay capability).
2. Obtain or confirm certification from the various reputation
services.
3. Get a variety of email addresses on ISPs such as AOL.
4. Send lots of email from (1) to (3).
5. Analyze deliverability statistics and Publish the results.
What I am proposing here is an independent Underwriters Laboratory
style model that assesses basic email deliverability.
There are a variety of trusted groups on the net that would be capable
of providing such a service. Such a FairMail Verification service
might be funded by the ISPs in return for a "Monitored by FairMail"
certification. Or, it might be funded by an industry trade
association.
I'd be more than happy to hear from folks on this issue. It is just
one possible proposed solution and I don't speak for any of the parties
involved.
Regards,
Carl Malamud
Chief Technology Officer
Center for American Progress
(speaking for himself, not the Center, AOL, EFF, or Goodmail)
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/