Outrage Over AOL Email Filtering Plans

AOL's announcement last week that they are often deleting links and images from emails from those who aren't whitelisted has created a firestorm from their subscribers. Here are some of the comments I received in response to articles in murdok about AOL's partnership with Goodmail: When I saw the article about this in the Sunday paper I had much the same thoughts, only the word "extortion" was the first one I thought of. If AOL, which has always had a cavalier attitude about other companies, decides to make people pay to have their email delivered (and that will be the next step), they will end up losing business. I, for one, would place a notice on my opt-in email sign-up form that I cannot deliver to an aol address. That will mean AOL customers will miss out on a ton of free information. Others will undoubtedly do the same thing. Your point about libel is a good one. The copyright laws might also come into play here. Huge fines and court costs possible. I think this is a trial balloon on AOL's part, though. Posted by: Tony ================= This is like the post office opening mail & removing or changeing what is in the envelope. Infringment of privacy & criminal offence in uk (felony level in usa) & should be treated by the courts in the same way. next they will be adding their OWN advertisments! Posted by: http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/2/emw343224.htm We do have a real dilemma. 20% of my customer base uses AOL or Yahoo. We're supposed to be whitelisted with AOL, but since January, we've had trouble communicating with Yahoo customers. I do not intend to pay goodmail. We are looking into Habeas and Bonded Sender. If spending $10K a year or so would end delivery problems, I'd pay it in a heartbeat. I won't pay up to $150K, which is what goodmail could cost. We'll probably run an announcement in a few more days stating that we're not going to pay goodmail and will instead direct our subscribers to different email providers (which, in fact, has already begun). Thanks for fighting this. Lots of people need to fight it. Matt Michel CEO & President The Service Roundtable Spam Cube. The first consumer anti-spam/anti-virus gadget for residential, the "ipod of spam protection" if you will. David J. Soares Chief Business Development Officer Spam Cube, Inc ================= Agree that that it sounds like a failed model to charge for the delivery of free subscription emails. And I don't think people will pay for 99% of the free emails that they subscribe to for the very reason that they are free. However, a way to somehow register the sender that would be able for a users email app to use as a part of a filter function would maybee do the trick. It wouldn't stop spammers, but it decrease their possibilities of getting through maybee? Posted by: Michael ================= I haven't studied AOL's plans and can't speak about it specifically, and some of what I have heard seems ominous, but I for one am definitely willing to pay to get my mail through or posting a bond at least. Too much valid mail is being blocked and this causes all kinds of problems for small firms reaching their customers or members. Hopefully it also results in a reduction of spam. Posted by: Anonymous ================= This is the thin end of the wedge. I would strongly suggest that any service provider that does not allow mail from any source to go to the recipcant as was intended (spam filters as used at present excepted) & who does not provide an opt out box to tick, should have all their sevices boycotted by users in every country.vote them out with your wallet if you dont like what they do! Posted by: murdok which publishes over 200 websites and email newsletters.

Rich also publishes his blog