Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender Accountability The Email Service Provider Perspective ___________ Hans Peter Brøndmo SVP Strategy and Corp Development Digital Impact NAI Email Service Provider Coalition
NAI ESP Coalition Formed to Combat Spam and Protect Legitimate Email Marketing Coalition – 30 members and counting Representing ~200 k businesses Active since December ‘ 02 3 sub-committees: Legislative Communications Technological solutions
Email Marketing: From Spam to Steak Value to Recipient Relational Messages: Transactional, personal, paid service, newsletters, alerts, notifications… Permission Retention Permission Acquisition Spam Adopted from: “The Engaged Customer” © HP Brondmo, 2000
Why Consent? It has become generally accepted that legitimate e-mail marketing must be based on consent based customer communications Traditional Offline DM: Forgiveness § Only “push” communication § High fixed cost of communication § Implicit company “right” to choose § § who to communicate to Physical address and phone number separate from personal identity Level of intrusiveness = “annoyance” Cost of “annoyance” borne by sender (communicating company) Limited legal recourse Today’s (Online) DM: Permission § Combo “push/pull” communication § Low fixed cost of communication § Implicit consumer “right” to choose § § who to receive communication from Cyber address part of personal identity Level of intrusiveness = “frustration, invasion of privacy” Cost of delivery & “frustration” borne by recipient (ISP & consumer) Expanding legal recourse Source: Digital Impact Strategic Analysis Group
Problem with Permission Definition If she opts-out from one newsletter, can I still send others to her? Does an Info Request mean I can add him to my mailing list? Does her consent on Product A extend to Product B? Is he still a customer if he hasn’t bought recently? Maybe. . . it all depends.
Mail Gateway View ed ist ckl Bla RECIPIENTS Mail Gateways nde se rs SPAM Whitelisted senders Un kno wn sen der
ESP View CONSENT Known B 2 B Senders RECIPIENTS Mail Gateway ESPs Known B 2 C Senders Known Relationship Senders
Technology Solutions Proliferating (11/02) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Active. Email. Monitor Activator. Mail Apocgraphy Assurance. Systems Aura Avir. Mail Big. Fish Blackmail Blue. Bottle Bonded. Sender Bright. Mail Cerber Choicemail (digiportal) Choicemail ( digiportal) Cloud. Mark Declude DCC Despammed De-Spammer Elron Email. Address. Encoder Emailias Email. Inspector Email. Remover Erado F-Secure Garbage. Man GFi. Mail. Essentials Habeas i. Hate. Spam 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Inbox. Doctor Inbox. Protector JBMail JOC Emai Checker Junk. Filter Junk. Jam Junk. Spy Just. Filtering Mail. Box. Filter Mail. Circuit Mail. Expire Mail. Filters Mail. Frontier Mail. Marshal Mail. Scan Mail. Shell Mail. Shield (Lyris ) Mail. Shield ( Lyris ) Mail. Snoop Mail. Sweep Mail. Talk. X Mail. Washer messagecontrol Message. Labs Messagewall. org MXLogic My. Guard. net Nucem Osirusoft Perl. MX POP 3 Gateway 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. Postini 88. Postiva 89. Praetor 90. Queria 91. Quarantine. Mail Remove. Me. Now 92. 93. Road. Block 94. Save. Mail 95. Sendmail 96. Singlefin 97. Smart. Shield 98. Sneakemail 99. Spam. Arrest 100. Spam. Assassin 101. Spam. Bam 102. Spam. Buster Spam. Butcher Spam. Cop Spam. Eater Pro Spam. Erase Spam. Ex Spam. Gourmet Spam. Inspector Spam. Killer(Mc. Afee) Spam. Lion Spam. Motel Spam. Slammer Spam. Spade Spam. Stopper Spam. Thing Spam. Subtract (Intermute) Spam. Subtract ( Intermute) Spam. Weasel Surf. Control Symantec TMDA Tumble. Weed USOpt Vanquish Vipul's Razor Vircom Vote 4 Mail Web. Sense White. ICE
Existing “Solutions” To Spam Are Ineffective Major ISPs n Proprietary Filtering Send volume Bounce volume Subscriber reporting n n Detection networks (Brightmail) Blacklists Whitelists Consumer Tools Secondary ISPs, . EDUs, . ORGs n n Blacklists Consumer tools Organizational (Corporate) n n Content filters (edge & desktop) Blacklists Throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater: n n n Current solutions penalize legitimate senders/ESPs by generating false positives We are guessing at what constitutes spam by the nature of the message and delivery characteristics ISP and blacklists processes are opaque
“Spam-Guessing” Resulting In Growing False Positives Problem Average Non-Delivery for Top ISPs: 15% Bell. South Earthlink USA. net MSN Mall. com Hotmail 8% Compuserve 14% AOL 18% Yahoo 22% Net. Zero 27% Assurance Systems, Feb. 2003
The Solution: Our View Best Practices Consumer Education Legislation / Standards Technology
Consumer Education Consumer control and choice must be at the center of any solution Consumers must understand embrace good email “security” n (really, really difficult. . . ) We (ISPs, ESPs and solutions providers) need to understand consumer concerns related to deliverability: n I_did_not_get_my_email forum
Best Practices Consent/Permission/Opt-In n Are consent standards attainable? (Many failed efforts in this area) We may not have a choice! (Monster. Hut) Varying legal standards will demand varying solutions anyways It Just Makes $ense n Better practices results in higher returns for legitimate email marketing
Legislation We need Federal, preemptive legislation! n n Senator Burns: Can Spam Act House bill? State “crazy quilt” hurts us all n n n 26 and counting Differing standards – impossible compliance “do not email” proposals will only penalize legitimate senders
Technology Build ACCOUNTABILITY into the system n n ISPs accountable for delivery Anti-spam solutions (blacklists, filters) accountable for their offerings Senders accountable for what they send and to whom ESPs accountable for creating transparency NAI effort: n n Verification and Certification Authentication Objective compliance monitoring Enforcement Need for standards, broad consensus and “ownership” among various constituents
Four Steps To Eradicate The Spam Plague 1. Implement a “platform” for accountability 1. 2. 3. Verification and certification Authentication Objective compliance monitoring 2. Establish independent email trust authority 3. Pass federal preemptive legislation prohibiting falsified email headers 4. Demand full transparency 1. 2. Sender transparency (origin of email, etc. ) Receiver transparency (standards for delivery, etc. )
The NAI ESP Coalition Is Committed To Solving Spam Through Sender Accountability NAI Email Service Provider Coalition Hans Peter Brondmo Chair, NAI ESP Registry Working Group brondmo@digitalimpact. com 650 356 3430 J. Trevor Hughes Executive Director, NAI ESP nai@networkadvertising. org 207 351 1500
Скачать презентацию Solving Spam By Establishing A Platform For Sender
52eaf81a5c925a8a39f8e316281ca179.ppt