http://brainsonfire.com/blog/2006/02/06/goodmail/ Fascinating, Inspiring, Rewarding and Engaging kinded spirits. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:42:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 http://brainsonfire.com/blog/2006/02/06/goodmail/#comment-424 Ian McKee Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:29:45 +0000 http://66.179.63.58/blog/goodmail/#comment-424 Yes, bulk emailer will have to assure Goodmail that all the people receiving email have opted in. BUT I dont know is how they police this - I would favour the bulk sender posting a significant bond (eg $1 per email sent) which is returned provided it generates less than an X% complain rate. If the mailing breached that, then the sender would forfit the entire bond! Now would'nt that concentrate the mind of bulk emailers! However I also agree with Spike that this does feel more like "bad profit" scheme for AOL/Yahoo at the expense of customer experience Yes, bulk emailer will have to assure Goodmail that all the people receiving email have opted in. BUT I dont know is how they police this - I would favour the bulk sender posting a significant bond (eg $1 per email sent) which is returned provided it generates less than an X% complain rate. If the mailing breached that, then the sender would forfit the entire bond! Now would’nt that concentrate the mind of bulk emailers! However I also agree with Spike that this does feel more like “bad profit” scheme for AOL/Yahoo at the expense of customer experience

]]> http://brainsonfire.com/blog/2006/02/06/goodmail/#comment-423 Chris Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:29:20 +0000 http://66.179.63.58/blog/goodmail/#comment-423 This "feature" is suppose to only apply to those companies whose customer base has already agreed to receive such communication. I don't this it's all that evil. It's a sure fire way that company firewalls/spam filters would not prevent, say a credit card bill from being caught. What if you get email alerts from your bank when your account is close to being overdrawn and a spam filter prevented that message from being delivered and the next thing you know, you're in the red. Bottom line is that if this only applies to people that have already agreed to receive such communication, it can't hurt. This “feature” is suppose to only apply to those companies whose customer base has already agreed to receive such communication. I don’t this it’s all that evil. It’s a sure fire way that company firewalls/spam filters would not prevent, say a credit card bill from being caught. What if you get email alerts from your bank when your account is close to being overdrawn and a spam filter prevented that message from being delivered and the next thing you know, you’re in the red. Bottom line is that if this only applies to people that have already agreed to receive such communication, it can’t hurt.

]]>