Seth -
Just a follow up comment on one point, how can receivers
use the information provided by accreditation services?
The answer depends on one's perspective. If you hold the
view that since commercial usage of email leads to spam,
then you will filter all email for content and use a rating
criteria to ascertain whether a message is spam or not.
In this case one can apply ratings based on the standards
set by the accreditation service.
Accreditation services which require verified opt-in with
black listing for non compliance should logically give
these senders a significant benefit.
Accreditation services which only require unconfirmed
opt-in or a pre-existing business relationship with
financial penalties being imposed and loss of accreditation
based on certain criteria should logically give these
senders some minimal benefit, since there are some controls
being imposed on these senders.
On the other hand, if you hold the view that commercial
usage of email is not bad in and of itself as long as the
messages are sent with prior permission, then you will use
the information provided by accreditation services for
white listing purposes at the network server level.
In this case how does one respond to the different
standards? It is up to receivers.
From the end user's perspective, as a customer of an
internet service provider, I would suggest:
* Senders who comply with accreditation standards which
require verified opt-in and who are black listed for
violation can be white listed at the network server level,
with the end user then assessing content based on his or
her personal preferences.
* Senders who comply with accreditation standards which
don't require verified opt-in should not be white listed.
Why? By receivers drawing this distinction, it compels
senders to either use verified opt-in or have their
messages subjected to content filtering, albeit receiving
some benefit depending on the nature of the controls
imposed by the accreditation service and how receivers view
the value of these controls.
From either perspective, I suggest once verified opt-in
senders are able to establish a 'good' reputation, these
senders can if they wish, withdraw from the use of an
accreditation service and rely upon their 'good' reputation
to be white listed at the network server level.
This negates the concept that 'good' senders should have to
pay for email delivery. This requires wide spread
implementation of workable reputation services.
Unfortunately, we are not yet at that stage.
As to individuals who use domains for identity purposes
only and do not send bulk email, we are into a different
area.
There have been suggestions put forward of using free cert
services, one time fee only for accreditation, along with
restrictions on daily volumes. These may be acceptable
solutions. However, without a fully flushed out position,
it is hard to make any comment.
John
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
The FTC Calls For Sender Authentication
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/dne.html
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11/08/2004