AOL demands cash on delivery for email
AOL now charges companies and organizations money to ensure that their emails arrive in AOL members’ inboxes.
Previously AOL used a free IP-based “Enhanced White List”. Senders that observed best practice in their email habits could be (mostly) sure that their emails would reach AOL customers.
According to a report on ClickZNews 
, companies must now sign up for accreditation with Goodmail, an “email delivery assurance business” that charges “accredited companies a fraction of a cent per message sent”. Otherwise their emails may not arrive, or will arrive with hyperlinks and images disabled.
Slashdot reports that Yahoo is expected to follow suit.
Is this a bad thing? An investor in a rival delivery assurance company thinks so
And so it’s a sad day for email. The spammers have won. They have turned email delivery into a business that can be bought and sold for the highest price.
Or is it a win for customers in the end, as AOL Postmaster Charles Stiles says in the ClickZNews report?
Our focus and goal here is to provide a safer and more secure environment for our consumers, and restore some trust in the e-mail inbox.
UPDATE: According to the New York Times , the charge for using this new service ranges between .25 and 1 cent an email.
The article also suggests that
the move to create what is essentially a preferred class of e-mail is a major change in the economics of the Internet.
Similar Posts:
- Why email stamps are a good idea
- Email is… like… so over
- AOL censorship twist in Goodmail email battle
- Pay-per-email: More on AOL and Goodmail
- SBC Global/Yahoo server problems
Tags: AOL, delivery assurance, email, Email in general, Internet, spam, whitelist, Yahoo
February 5th, 2006 at 7:03 am
This is a terrible thing. What about new or independent or small mailing lists – how are they meant to be able to afford systems like this?
My hope is that such a new list will appear, that’s overwhelmingly popular, but refuses to pay this tax, and AOL subscribers will revolt.
February 5th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Terrible idea from a company who hasn’t been very positive in growth the past few years. I’m sure it’ll shore up cash, though not a long time user base — something that AOL lost with it’s dumbed down system.
I wouldn’t say the spammers have one — but now it’s like Norton or Symantec — a business that makes it’s money trying to defeat something that would ironically kill their business if they succeeded in their beginning goal.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
After thinking about it for a bit, I think I agree with you both.
Systems based on good behaviour are generally better than systems based on the ability to pay, on the Internet and elsewhere, is my hunch.