MAAWG and email appending

In today’s Magill Report Ken says:

The only surprise in the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group’s statement last week condemning email appending was that it didn’t publish one sooner.
However, MAAWG’s implication that email appending can’t be accomplished without spamming is nonsense.

Ken does have a point. I can come up with a number of scenarios where recipients give permission to have their data appended. It’s not totally impossible to append with permission. I don’t think MAAWG would argue that appending with permission is a violation of MAAWG core values.
But that’s all in theory. The fact that someone could do email appending with permission doesn’t mean they are. In fact, no one is. It’s expensive to do appending with permission and the return is low. There is a very practical reason no one is doing appending with permission: it’s not cost effective.
Let me put it another way. You can’t actually get enough people to opt-in to an appending process to pay for the cost of appending.
And that is why I am OK with MAAWG publishing a strong statement against appending without any nuance. Appending with permission is not a valid business model, so no appending service is going to offer it. I’m also convinced if someone did, somehow, come up with some magic business model that makes appending with permission cost effective that MAAWG would amend their statement.
But spending months (or years given the actual conversation) coming up with the right carve out language to accommodate non-existent business models seems a waste of time.

Related Posts

Marketing or spamming?

A friend of mine sent me a copy of an email she received, asking if I’d ever heard of this particular sender. It seems a B2B lead generation company was sending her an email telling her AOL was blocking their mail and they had stopped delivery. All she needed to do was click a link to reactivate her subscription.
The mail copy and the website spends an awful lot of time talking about how their mail is accidentally blocked by ISPs and businesses.

Read More

Holomaxx status

Just for completeness sake, Holomaxx did also file an  amended complaint against Microsoft. Same sloppy legal work, they left in all the stuff about Return Path even though Return Path has been dropped from the suit. They point to a MAAWG document as a objective industry standard when the MAAWG document was merely a record of a round table discussion, not actually a standards document. I didn’t read it as closely as I did the Yahoo complaint, as it’s just cut and paste with some (badly done) word replacement.
So what’s the status of both cases?
The Yahoo case is going to arbitration sometime in July. Yahoo also has until May 20 to respond to the 1st amended complaint.
The Microsoft case is not going to arbitration, but they also have a response deadline of May 20.
I’m not a legal expert, but I don’t think that what Holomaxx has written fixes the deficits that the judge pointed out in his dismissal. We’ll see what the Y! and MSFT responses say a month from today.

Read More

Amendment is futile, part 2

When Yahoo filed for dismissal of the Holomaxx complaint, they ended the motion with “Amendment would be futile in this case.” The judge granted Yahoo’s motion but did grant Holomaxx leave to amend. Holomaxx filed an amended complaint earlier this month.
The judge referenced a couple specific deficiencies of Holomaxx’s claims in his dismissal.

Read More