4 ms·
Any pay-to-send model destroys mailing lists and the ability for large sites to use email to send notifications (e.g. Amazon package shipments). It's a complete
by Analemma_ 4y ago
Any pay-to-send model destroys mailing lists and the ability for large sites to use email to send notifications (e.g. Amazon package shipments). It's a complete non-starter. I get that you're frustrated with the famous checkbox list but it exists for a reason beyond intellectual laziness - the "won't works" really are won't works.
- gaganyaan 4y agoIt does actually seem rather lazy. "Whitelists suck" is not informative or helpful.
- ggm 4y agoIt's a matter of opinion. It doesn't destroy them, it demands something like patreon. It's a complete non starter because the community does not want to explore it. I don't expect to convince you any more than I expect to be listened to really: I've held this view since the eighties, earlier list paradigms I used in the 70s met cost, and were policed by list administrators accordingly. This topic has been dominated by a very few loud voices who basically prevent rational discourse.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y agoHow about user-side whitelists + pay-per-send for anything unsolicited?
- tomjen3 4y agoThey pay to send model, at something like 0.1 penny an email does not destory amazon package shipments, but would properly force mailinglists to require payment to be on them. But more importantly: the list didn't give technical answers, it gave political tradeofs that we never debated. Meanwhile the Gmail team went ahead and did what they did, and now we are stuck with one particular system that people then complain about.