From: John Glube
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 12:00 AM
Seth -
Community operated blacklists give me all the reputation
information I need for free. Accreditation doesn't offer me
anything of value.
Receivers don't have to pay to access information received
from accreditation services.
This means any receiver can use this information if they
wish to augment other available sources to determine the
trustworthiness, or lack of trustworthiness of a
particular sender.
For example, if the accreditation service uses a listing
concept to outline specifically the sender's policies, a
receiver can use this information to make decisions based
on their own local policy as to what steps it wishes to
take in dealing with a message received from sender
accredited by this service.
Promises to follow policies are not of any value unless you have an
actual contract between sender and recipient. Only a reputation rating
based on past history has any real value for the recipient. Even then
it is questionable, as businesses can change their name, status and
corporate charter faster than anyone can keep up.
Anybody whose business it is to accredit email senders
where such accreditation is in both parties mutual interest
is, in fact, a conflict of interest.
You are stating since senders are paying the bill,
therefore the accreditation service will be biased towards
senders as opposed to receivers.
This is based on a presumption which is not correct.
For an accreditation service to have any value, the fact
senders are paying the bills must in and of itself have no
bearing on how the accreditation service operates.
I will flatly state my position on this: follow the money. It's very
simple but it still appears to be the best predictor of outcomes. A
financial conflict of interest is inherent in the sender-pays concept.
This amounts to industry self-regulation, which has proven not to work
in many settings. The worst part about it is that only the largest
players benefit from this structure. The small-fry don't get any
special favors but still have to pay.
I would expect that a sender-financed accreditation service to meet the
needs of recipients as well as a Chamber of Commerce does for consumers.
I wouldn't expect to get an honest answer from a Chamber of Commerce as
to the reputation of any of its members, nor would I trust any
sender-funded accreditation service.
How do you establish:
* the review criteria before acceptance;
* the standards of performance by senders;
* the criteria for punishment; and
* how that punishment is meted out?
Other questions include:
* Do you establish a board of advisors?
* If so, what should be the role of this board and who
should be on this board?
In answering these questions, one has to ask the receiving
community for comment, input and guidance since this is the
community which will receive the benefit of the service.
This is all very thoughtful, but it doesn't change the basic financial
imperatives, with the final result being ...
Of course, receivers can decide despite all this, we don't
trust these folks.
We think they are in the pay of senders and we will not use
their service no matter what they say.
That is historically what people have found to be true. It is driven by
the fact that when there are competing priorities, people will most
often act in their financial self-interest. The nature of our present
economic system drives people to heavily favor short-term benefits,
which exacerbates the situation.
My response?
If this is the general consensus then it is back to the
drawing board. What has been done incorrectly and what is
needed to rectify the situation.
Of course some people will simply decide they have no
interest in using such a service no matter who is involved
and how it is set up.
If it's financed by senders, I'm afraid that is what you're up against.
The difference in viewpoints between bulk senders and recipients is so
different as to be irreconcilable. Bulk senders typically find
blacklists to be arbitrary, punitive and unfair. As a recipient and an
engineer, I find that blacklists have become increasingly accurate and
responsive. Bulk senders want a well-defined system that resembles due
process. Recipients prefer immediate halt to abuse, which precludes due
process. In a typical adversarial relationship, eventually the two
parties might benefit from cooperation. However, in this case, the bulk
senders have nothing that recipients want, so there is no basis for
cooperation.
--
Seth Goodman