I've been getting questions on it from all over, and heard some outrageous claims and fears. Everything from "All email is going to be charged for" to "This is going to kill small publishers" to "This is just a 'pay to spam' system!"

Ummm... No.

In the immortal words of Douglas Adams: Don't Panic!

The basic point that needs to be made is simple: For the moment, nothing changes for anyone who chooses not to pay for Goodmail's certification.

Nothing. Keep doing what you're doing and you'll keep getting what you're getting.

Status quo.

Okay. Now that you're breathing again and the sky is glued firmly back in place, let's look at what's really happening here.

First, let's be clear: CertifiedEmail is not in any way, shape or form, an attempt to reduce spam. It's a system that allows end users to immediately recognize legitimate email from paying senders whose identities have been checked and verified.

The mechanism is more involved than that but, to the end user, that's the whole effect in a nutshell.

The thing that makes it so attractive to ISPs is that it's much more effective in making that identification reliably than other systems have been in the past.

If you're on a system that uses CertifiedEmail and get a message with Goodmail's stamp on it, a little emblem shows on your mailer's interface that tells you it's really what it claims to be.

Doesn't matter whether you call it accreditation, certification, email ID or green jell-o. That's all it does.

"But can't a spammer use this to get messages delivered,
as long as they tell the truth about who they are?"

No.

First, there's the issue that Goodmail's system is relatively labor intensive to start, requires about $10,000 up front investment, and makes every message trackable to a real person or company. (That last part's a killer for spammers. Like roaches, they do not like the light.)

Then there's the per-message fee, reportedly ranging from .2 cents to .4 cents each.

Most spammers couldn't make enough money per message delivered for this to be useful, even if they could get approved for the system. And that's about as likely as an affair between George Bush and Hillary Clinton.

"Could more legitimate companies use it to get their emails
through to people who didn't ask for them?"

It's unlikely that any legitimate firm would make it through the vetting process if they had any history of this kind of behavior, or if they couldn't properly demonstrate just what kinds of mail they were sending and that they had proper permission to send it.

If they did manage to get approved and started generating complaints, they'd be kicked out of the program, with no way back in.

It's important to understand that, unlike most previous systems, this isn't based on IP addresses. It's based on the actual entity that's responsible for the mail. It's a lot harder to create an entirely new corporate identity than it is to shuffle IP ranges or change mailing service providers.

So, no. There's no percentage in it for companies to sign up if they aren't going to do things the right way.

Move along. No pay-to-spam here.

"Why is this generating so much heat and smoke,
if this is all there is to it?"

Well, any time you talk about "paying for email," some people put on the big red cape and leap to tall conclusions in a single bound. When they do, they often start talking without bothering with little things like facts.

The people reading their comments assume the authors know what they're talking about and spread the FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt), thinking they're doing something useful.

Before you know it, you've got a fire with no fuel.

Not all that helpful.

Let's look at what's happening with the two providers who've agreed to roll it out first.

Yahoo intends initially to offer it as an option only for the most valuable and frequently forged type of email: transactional messages. Order confirmations, bank and brokerage communications, account status information and similarly high value messages.

This is a Good Thing, as it would make it easier for people getting those messages to tell the difference between email that really is from your bank and email from a kid in Russia who just wants to get hold of your credit card information.

Yahoo intends to handle all other incoming email just as it does now.

Where's the beef?

For AOL it's only slightly different, but that little difference is where a lot of the confusion arises.

AOL will be offering CertifiedEmail as an option for any bulk sender who can get through Goodmail's certification process. Mail from those senders will show up in the mailbox directly (unless the user's individual filters change that), with images and links enabled by default.

That's the part that most people don't understand. If the sender's address isn't in the user's addressbook, ALL emails come in with links and images disabled. By default.

Even mail from Grandma.

That's not going to change, except for CertifiedEmail. What AOL has done is created a whole new class of email for their users. They haven't taken anything away.

If the sender's address is in the user's addressbook, their email will still show up in the inbox with links and images enabled, even if they don't choose to use Goodmail's system.

Again, nothing's changed.

Oh yeah. You may want to whitelist Grannie.

No matter what we may think, CertifiedEmail is pretty much a fait accompli. (From the Greek, for "Done deal. Get over it.")

Yahoo and AOL combine to represent a very large fraction of the majority of consumer email lists out there, and they're both on board.

That's critical mass already, all wrapped up in a pretty pink ribbon.

But so what? Yahoo isn't asking publishers to use it. They're not even allowing you to use it, except for transactional messages. They're just not an issue.

If you're really worried about getting mail through to AOL subscribers, you have other, easier targets for your concern.

Send only to people who've asked for your mail. Remove addresses that bounce. Sign up for a feedback loop, if you have a dedicated IP. Ask your subscribers to add your sending address to their addressbooks.

Work and play well with others.

Can you say, "All the cool kids do it?"

Ah knew yew could.

There are valid philosophical debates about the issue of asking legitimate mailers to pay for spam-fighting efforts. AOL, at least, has said it plans to use its share of the revenues from CertifiedEmail for that purpose.

Some people in the email publishing community have raised concerns about the fact that ISPs get part of the money paid for each message. They fear that this may become an excuse to degrade delivery for legitimate email that doesn't carry the Goodmail stamp.

The folks at AOL and Yahoo both say that they have no intention of allowing that to happen, and I believe them. Still, things change. There's no way to tell if that will occur in the future, so it is something to watch for.

And watch we will. But for now, that's all that's needed.

Paul