Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Will Sell Whitelist Services For Hotmail
Ec|ipse writes "Looks like Microsoft has found another way to make money, this time from spam. Microsoft has adopted a "whitelist" program (Bonded Sender by IronPort) which will allow marketers to pay Microsoft so that they are included on a special whitelist, guaranteeing uninteruptable delivery of their messages to Hotmail and MSN users. You can catch the full article at Excite. I especially like the nice naming for spammers, calling them 'marketers' sounds so much more legitimate."
mgibbs adds "Hopefully the $20K fine that results from abuse of this system is enough to deter spammers."
And then they will charge users extra for "adv free" service. Oh wait, I thought they were talking about phone companies.
Looks like they've just pointed a double barrelled gun at their feet. If they were trying to avoid wholesale migration away to either:
- Google's Gmail OR
- Novell's MyRealEmail....
Then this is a f***ing dozey way to do it!
Linux fan and Win32 developer
I had an hotmail address years ago, back in the day before MS buy the domain... I never really used it... and I still don't know why people need an hotmail address? passport thing? you can live without it and without MSNM you know...
/. should make a poll to know who has and who hasn't an hotmail address, and in comments we would know why people who has one, well... has one.
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
So, Once again they get the little guy. What about that small nonprofit running their own mail server. Or that small business running their own mail server. They have to pay the same as the big business.
Large companies can afford to drop a payment on this but the small business/non-profit sure can't.
Evolution or ID?
Yahoo has been doing this for a LONG time.
they have their "spam" filtering yet there are types of spam that will not go away as they have "special" spam from their "partners" that will NEVER EVER hit their filtering rules for spam.
I am betting that ALL free email sites will do this within this year.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What difference does that make? They're still spamming. I don't care if they do have a valid return address: 'unsolicited' is still 'unsolicited'.
Yup, I guess it does give them the right to do that.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
I fail to understand why anyone even bothers with hotmail anymore. There's nothing less professional looking than putting a free-email address on your business card or website.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
allow legitimate marketers to thread the gauntlet of spam filters
- run the gauntlet
- thread the needle
choose one.D.
Just because you can't, doesn't mean you shouldn't.
I concur. Isn't this fighting what Microsoft has allegedly stated they want to stop: the unsolicited sending of marketing based messages through the inboxes of every consumer and business employee? I didn't RTFA but judging from the gist of the summary I have to call major bullshit on Microsoft's stance on discouraging spam and creating technology to reduce/eliminate spam, and then pulling a tactic such as this to allow "marketers" who are legitimate to still send marketing emails in mass. Perhaps I missed something over the past 5 years regarding the definition of spam. I always under the impression that spam was the sending of any unsolicated message by a for profit agency in mass to a multitude of internet users. If that isn't what it is then I'll be eagerly awaiting Microsoft's marketing department to enlighten me on the subject.
So what if it would weed out only non-serious marketers? You're implying there is 'legit' spam out there, that there actually should be a market for this shit.
People here should know that putting a pricetag on something doesn't make everything kosher.
Bulk mail without opt-in should be criminalized regardless if the envelope is paper, SMTP or whatever. Bulk mail is just another form of 'I have money, I can send propaganda to anybody, you cannot stop me, muahahaha!".
Rant over.
The beef I have with this scheme is that since it's the user that's inconvenienced by the spam, the bond money should be sent to them in the event of a violation. The fact that Microsoft is the one getting the funds is what makes it seem like a money grab.
Anyone thinking there is a greed motive for this is wrong. There is no way that Microsoft would trade this much bad press for the paltry amounts of money that this could generate. So, here's what I think is happening.
Microsoft has been pursuing various antispam paths, but the ultimate one, enforceable legislation to stop it, has encountered some resistance unless the legislation's effects are limited in some way. I think they are trying to counter some of this resistance.
There are occassions that I get "spam" from software companies (whose products I've used in the past) advertising new products. I don't mind that kind of spam, yet I almost always find them in my spam box because I use a pure white list approach and forgot to put the company on my white list.
The kind of spam that really drives me nuts and causes me to switch addresses is the spam that's looking for that one sucker in a million, the viagra spam, the refinancing spam, and the pornographic spam.
If the guidelines a) ban the improper spam while allowing contacts from other companies and b) strongly enforce requests to remove my email from a list, I could live with this system. Especially if they implement a one stop shop to manage whose lists I'm removed from.
But why would I want to live with this? Because it cuts the only leg of the spammers arguments that has been getting any mileage at all out from under them. If you create an enforceable system and say, "you can spam if you follow the rules of this system", then they can't argue that their "legitimate" spam is being blocked anymore and all antispam legislation suddenly gets a green light.
So what? It's essentially a $20,000 fee to guarantee getting past the antispam filters of 170 million people.
.001%, it'll be profitable for things like penis enlargement pills.
That's cheap, and thus economically feasible.
It will keep out spammers who have a low-margin product that gets a low (.0001%) response rate, but for spammers that have a high-margin product or a high response rate, it'll be seen as a fee.
If the response rate is even
MicroSoft doesn't get the bond, bondedsender gets the bond. Bondedsender has an incentive to whack spammers quickly so as to get the bond money. This discourages spammers from using bondedsender, which encourages ISPs like MSN/Hotmail to use them.
If you get a spam from somone on the bondedsender program, just report it via spamcop.net. The report automatically goes to bondedsender. If you are not sure if the spam came from someone using bondedsender, just report it via spamcop.net and let them figure it out.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
The original poster assumed that Microsoft is opening the door to spammers. What is unsaid in the article is if these e-mails were actually solicited.
I could see that legit ads (i.e. you definitely signed up to recieve them) might be tossed out with the huge amount of spam. What Microsoft *might* be doing here is saying "OK, you say you are opt-in, we'll let your stuff through, but we're gonna take a bite out of you if you are lying to us."
Unfortunately, the author of the article didn't bother to state exactly what the rules are that Microsoft is imposing. Roast the journalist, not Microsoft (at least, not yet).
Think about it .. the way you describe the BOND works better for M$ and there's less work for them. I'm sure there's details I'm omitting/overlooking, but humor this conspiracy theory for a moment ...
Seems like a little bit of patience will get Microsoft some cash with little effort.
Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas
[May God give you double that which you wish for me]
The beef I have with this scheme is that since it's the user that's inconvenienced by the spam, the bond money should be sent to them in the event of a violation. The fact that Microsoft is the one getting the funds is what makes it seem like a money grab.
Well the users are getting an email account for free with Hotmail. If they were paying for their accounts then i can see some logic in that.
This system could potentially hurt many small hosting companies and small businesses. Businesses that have their own mail servers, or small hosts that provide mail services for their clients are now going to have to pay more just to provide basic mail service. Telling people "sorry, you can't send to MSN accounts" is simply not acceptable. It doesn't matter if it's a bond or not, the fact is that a small host now has to pay a lot of money to provide an essential service to it's clients. IronPort could essentially charge whatever they want if they own exclusive rights with MS for this service.
This approach form Microsoft is scary as hell for small hosts/providers and I hope that it doesn't happen if there is only one whitelist that MS goes with. If there were multiple whitelists, then I'd feel much more comfortable.
Monitor bandwidth usage on IIS6 in real-time: http://www.waetech.com/services/iisbm/
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
It seems pretty clear that the "injured party" is the spamee here, not Microsoft.
You're paying for the bandwidth?
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
High volume email is not necessarily spam.
They are interested in helping people to send out legitimate high volume email. It's therefore in their interests to stop people sending unsolicited bulk email, which gets in the way of the legit stuff.
I think a lot of anti-SPAM pundits on /. are actually anti-marketing pundits. Meaning they consider ALL email selling ANYTHING to be SPAM.
I grew up with publications that were, essentially, advertisements. Remember Computer Shopper? You never read the articles, did you? I sure didn't...but I read the ads. Same with RC Hobbiest. Nowadays, I get all sorts of cool publications and catalogues in the mail...VW Trends, Road Runner Sports, JC Whitney for Volkswagens, Crutchfield, Campmor, Victoria's Secret...and you know what, I look through them all. I don't always buy stuff, but I always find interesting things I didn't know existed (especially in that last one). Believe it or not, I enjoy that.
Now, email has opened up the door even further. I get catalogs from teeny tiny agencies that would never be able to offer them offline for the expense. I like that...I like looking through the clearance items at some obscure Bug shop in Tampa Bay that I'd never find out about otherwise. I just wish these mails would make it through my spam filter!
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Believe it or not, there ARE groups out there that advertise via email - but aren't spammers - that are arguably upset about spammers who clog inboxes.
One of them I buy stuff from infrequently - Overstock.com. I get an email from them every day, usually delete it right off, but I don't mind getting it because I did, indeed, sign up for it when I bought something from them the first time.
Ironport's service isn't just a "pay us lots of money and we'll look the other way" thing - the people in question do indeed have to stick to decent ethics about what they're selling, and to whom, and make sure it's damn easy to get off the list. So I view this as a relatively ambivalent thing.
It's not good, in the sense that spammers may manage to sneak in. But it's not bad, because the spammers will likely get zapped pretty fast, and because the idea of REAL companies putting up a bond of trust, "their money where their mouth is" so to speak with regard to a code of conduct, is a GOOD THING.
Consent
V. Participating Senders must ensure that consent with appropriate disclosure or a prior business relationship exists prior to sending Commercial or Promotional Email Messages.
Acceptable forms of consent include:
Double Opt-In: (sometimes referred to as 'Confirmed Opt-In'): The Recipient affirmatively requests to add his/her email address to a mailing list. The Recipient receives a confirmation email and the Recipient confirms his/her request by replying or visiting a provided URL.
Opt-In with Verification: The Recipient affirmatively requests to add his/her email address to a mailing list. The Recipient receives a verification email notifying him/her of the subscription and providing clear unsubscribe instructions.
Opt-In: The Recipient affirmatively requests to add his/her email address to a mailing list. Pre-Selected Option with Verification: The Recipient consents to have his/her email address added to a mailing list by leaving a clear and conspicuous pre-selected option intact. The Recipient receives a verification email notifying him/her of the subscription and providing clear unsubscribe instructions. Commercial or Promotional Email Messages sent under this form of consent must include clear and conspicuous identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation.
Pre-Selected Option: The Recipient consents to have his/her email address added to a mailing list by leaving a clear and conspicuous pre-selected option intact. Commercial or Promotional Email Messages sent under this form of consent must include clear and conspicuous identification that the message is an advertisement or solicitation.
I struggled for days and days and all I got was this lousy sig.
Seems to me like this is a step in the direction of entities eventually only accepting mail from "whitelisted" persons or groups, which will in all likelihood lead to a "fee" to be on a whitelist, thereby causing e-mail to no longer be free...
Maybe I'm being short-sighted, but this sounds fishy to me..
I hope that's really what you wanted.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
Are you serious? Id like to know just when the U.S. Constitution amended the constitution to make speech illegal.
I don't think I have the right to come into your house and speak my mind guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. This is about sending people stuff they didn't ask for because it's cheap for the sender, but (maybe) not for the receiver. If I was a billionare, maybe I would get kicks out of sending you 10 000 lbs of rocks and dumping them on your lawn, each day. Would you consider that freedom of expression?
I'd rather live with SPAM and bulk email than live with state-sponsored censorship.
I don't see how changing the default answer to the question of "do you want bulk mail" from "yes" to "no" for everybody infringes either freedom or security. I said "no bulk mail with out opt-in", not "you should never get bulk mail no matter what".
Spam by any other name...is still spam!
"Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes."
(If you can read this, you're overeducated.)
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
The owner of the most spammed sites on the planet is partnering with the biggest spammer arms dealer to ensure open access to your Inbox for their customers
Rule changes will be dictated by the receivers and I hope another Goliath begins using the program so MS doesn't "own" the rules.
It's a delicate balance and if managed properly is extremely effective for ensuring delivery of VERY legitimate bulk senders (i.e. CNET - 40M emails per month, 2 complaints)