Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 05:28:39 -0800
From: Danny O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
There's a rich irony here, but I'm not quite sure which of our
arguments it best serves...
d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mail Delivery System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Feb 9, 2006 12:57 AM
Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is the Postfix program at host localhost.localdomain.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The Postfix program
<silklist@lists.hserus.net>: host frodo.hserus.net[204.74.68.40] said: 550
Administrative Prohibition - See
http://spamblock.outblaze.com/67.188.111.216 (in reply to RCPT
TO command)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; silklist@lists.hserus.net
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host frodo.hserus.net[204.74.68.40] said: 550
Administrative Prohibition - See
http://spamblock.outblaze.com/67.188.111.216 (in reply to RCPT
TO command)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Danny O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 00:57:26 -0800
Subject: Re: [silk] off on my "the EFF is clueless about spam issues"
hobby horse, again.
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:42:03AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [IP] more on Yahoo, AOL, Goodmail and IP]
> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 08:20:15 +0530
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: -ENOENT
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>, Cindy Cohn
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Dave Farber wrote:
> > From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> I would not pay. I woud tell IPers to get another isp djf
> >> From: Cindy Cohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >> I blogged a piece about the recent decision by AOL and Yahoo to use
> >> the Goodmail system that might be of interest to IP. EFF will be
> >> doing more on this topic, but we wanted to start the discussion.
> >
> > Without commenting on the particulars as they relate to Goodmail --
> > especially since I am on the advisory board for Habeas, a competitor --
>
>
> Cindy's piece on the EFF website seems to be a bit of a pastiche, with
> elements taken out of various articles (some outright wrong, some merely
> misinformed) that have been doing the rounds of the media for quite a
> while now about goodmail
>
> She started off comparing AOL and goodmail with the old email hoax about
> congress taxing email. That same line was used in a circleid post by
> Matt Blumberg, CEO & Chairman of Returnpath (technically one of
> goodmail's competitors though they are in a slightly different space) -
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/aol_and_goodmail_two_steps_back_for_email/
>
> Various other quotes from different places - Richard Cox from spamhaus
> on cnn for example.
>
> However a lot of the quotes in those articles are being based on wrong
> or out of context assumptions, starting with one that goes "AOL is going
> to remove all its existing whitelists and force people to use goodmail".
> This article has been written by the simple expedient of copying and
> pasting together articles from media and using second hand quotes from
> various people instead of getting quotes from them directly ..
>
Hello!
I'm sure Cindy will answer for herself, but I can assure you that it wasn't.
The Richard Cox is the only direct quote taken from a new source. The
objections were all ours, although we've had plenty of other communication
with individuals who are fully informed, and still concerned.
> .. and then stirring the pot a bit more, by calling goodmail a
> "shakedown" of people operating non commercial mailing lists, and then
> using the good old slippery slope theory to imply that people cant even
> email their relatives at AOL without getting a goodmail stamp.
>
> I have several questions that still need answering about goodmail,
> because it is a proprietory system and so far being used on two closed
> and highly customized mail systems (Yahoo and AOL) where they control
> the user interface as well (yahoo webmail, AOL's email program). Oh, and
> because I'm buried in work and havent had the time to dig deeper than
> this yet.
>
And EFF shares your concerns: I think that part of the increased worry that
the Goodmail deal provides was that it's more than a simple reputation
guarantor system: it has one with worrying negative incentives, and
implications for AOL users losing more control over their inboxes than they
have now.
> And, so far, I have not been very much impressed by Cindy and other EFF
> posters efforts to prove that spam filtering is bad and infringes on
> free speech, on IP, politech and elsewhere.
> http://www.politechbot.com/2004/11/15/suresh-ramasubramanians-critique/
>
You know our position, and that's not quite it. Filtering unwanted mail isn't
bad when it's the user determining what they do and do not want, but when it's
an interference in that communication by a third party, it's problematical.
Now that's not to say that the engine of spam detection must lie absolutely on
the edges: but the user should be in control of how their mail is filtered.
> But even if I were to leave all that context out of my comments there,
> that EFF posting is not a balanced story, it is a hatchet job. Cindy's
> not doing any service to herself, or to the EFF, by posting that.
>
> >
> > And that is what the recent announcement is about. It concerns a means
> > of ensuring delivery of "transactional" mail. This is quite different
> > from "marketing" mail and it is not in the least controversial.
> >
>
> Bank statements. Air tickets. And other stuff that is sent to millions
> of people who have asked for it, who need it to catch their flight, or
> get a loan, and sometimes dont get it because it gets mistaken for
> phishing email, quite frequently by the user himself (you'd be surprised
> how often that happens, but quite probably, as you have operated a list
> for years now, that is not going to come as a surprise) :)
>
> So, banks, airlines etc decide to pay a bit extra to get a goodmail
> cert, that AOL's email software then translates to a seal of some kind
> that says its valid email. And further, trusts goodmail's vetting of
> people who sign on enough to not subject email from goodmail users to
> further filtering. I dont know what Cindy thinks, but well, I'd love to
> know, for SURE, that email claiming to be from my bank is actually from
> my bank .. and I'd sure appreciate having a copy of my ticket with me
> for sure before I go catch a plane.
>
> What's missing (and indeed, doesnt belong) in this picture? Surely not
> Aunt Tilly emailing her relatives, or Dave and Declan running mailing
> lists for thousands of people over a decade?
>
The argument for transactional mail is the most seductive application for
Goodmail, but there's nothing in Goodmail's approach or business model that
says they would be limiting themselves to this. Once again, the danger is that
by air-lifting some mass mailings out of the spam filtering process, in return
for cash, it reduces the incentive to fix the very problems that require that
bypass in the first place for those who haven't paid. It's exactly this
contrast between the incentives of the middle-man and the recipient that
concerns us.
> That's a bad strawman to raise, Cindy. An even worse one than the ones
> you've raised so far. And your tone's getting way too strident for you
> to turn out anything that's balanced and factual.
>
> regards
> srs
>
> ps: disclaimer if people need it - I'm not affiliated to and as of now
> dont have plans of using where I work - an email provider that's just
> over a third the size of AOL, with about 40 million users
I'm genuinely interested why not, if that's not too probing a question.
d.
>
