What is it about CertifiedEmail that upsets you so much? The way it makes it impossible for a sender to spoof identity? Or maybe you are upset that there finally accountability for senders who blast messages to inboxes uncontrollably? Consider for a moment that Goodmail is probably the most exclusive email program going today, and its users have to adhere to extremely low complaint thresholds. So while marketers and others are sharing some of their email-generated profits with the ISPs (read: offsetting the high costs of email infrastructure that YOU the recipient pay for), Goodmail is making the internet a much better place.
Rather than carry on a conversation in the comments section, I thought that I'd post my response as a new blog post.
I reject the assumptions in the commentors' question. Giving the practice a pretty name like Goodmail or CertifiedMail doesn't make it good, and who is doing the certifying anyway? Along the same vein, "Adhering to low compliant thresholds" is a meaningless statement. Goodmail may not allow deposed princes from Uganda looking to tranfer millions into your bank account through their system, but the email that they traffick in is still unwanted. Across the board people don't generally take the time flagging email as spam, so high "compliance" whatever that means is just a load of PR spin. I also take issue with your statement "offsetting the high costs of email infrastructure that YOU the recipient pay for". There are plenty of free email providers that don't use services like Goodmail. Rhetoric is cheap. There should be other ways developed to prevent email spoofing and inbox blasting.
So despite the fact that I reject your assumptions, I will still try to answer your direct question. However, read the articles hyperlinked in my last post on the topic, they articulate it better than I. Here's the short version: there are two things about Goodmail and its ilk that I don't like:
- Assuming that all Spam is bad, ISPs are complicit in filling my inbox with unwanted content. Yahoo, AOL etc tell me that they provide SPAM filters, yet they selectively disable them for certain parties.
- If you believe that spam is a legitimate form of marketing (I do not), allowing some paying customers to have access to my inbox over and above other is a blatant violation of net neutrality. SPAM should have the same barriers to access for all purveyors. Should a legitimate small business owner not be able to send out a catalog over postal mail because they can't pay the fees that LL Bean pays?
If I could ask one serious question of anyone who was defending pay-per-email, or sitting on the fence about it, this would be it: Suppose you sent an extremely urgent e-mail to your doctor or your lawyer, who for the sake of argument you're not able to reach by phone. The recipient's ISP owner happens to see the message before the user retrieves it, and realizes how urgently you need to get it through. So he moves it to the recipient's "spam" folder, and then calls you up and says: pay me $1,000 to move it to the recipient's inbox, or they'll never see it.Read the full article for the rest of his argument.
Bottom line. Spam sucks and I wish we didn't have to deal with it. But getting rid of most of it at the expense of net neutrality or legitimate email being blocked or delays is simply unacceptable.
Sorry if I babbled a bit here. I feel pretty passionately about this, and I wrote this off the cuff while trying to get back to my day job.