Ah, let's not replace one bad metaphor by another. It’s not an “email tax” because the service is optional and it’s not “protection racket” for exactly the same reason. You acknowledge that legitimate messages are not maliciously blocked by ISPs, so nothing really stands for the protection racket analogy. We both know that, let’s leave the inflammatory rhetoric to others. It’s a new premium service. It was not available a year ago. It now is. No “freedom is gotten rid of” with the introduction of a new optional service.

While standards for digital certificates and for signing message exist (we do use them at Goodmail), there are none (yet) for the additional message tracking we perform. We welcome competition. Rest assured: there will be.

The collateral damage is an established fact. It was not introduced by us; blame the spammers and the phishers. Pretending it doesn’t exist won’t make the problem go away. While many senders have no need for email certification, some face real problems. The American Red Cross really want their donor to know when a message they see is a genuine donation solicitation and when it is a phishing attempt. Senders of high value messages should each decide if leaving their customers uncertain regarding the genuineness of messages they receive is something they are okay with. They can opt to provide a better service to their customers and certify their messages or they can decide the status quo is good enough. Freedom is letting each sender make his own decision – freedom is not about declaring the internet is a one-size-fits-all medium. It is not, it never was.

Brad, I reiterate my invitation for you to visit our offices in Mountain View for a personal guided tour of how the system works and an open discussion on how to make it better and address your concerns.