>> I am looking forward to a clear and unambiguous statement from AOL 
>> through official channels.
>
> It doesn't look like you're going to get your wish. AOL seems to be
> denying they ever said anything of the sort:
>
>
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060208WhitelistStaysAOLsG
oodmailDance.html

I realize this is not what I wrote ;-), but what I really meant is that I
wanted AOL to make a clear and unambiguous statement about their future
plans, which they have now made. The whitelist will stay until further
notice, and that is what matters in the short term. Oh, they hastened to say
that they still "hope that people will slowly come off the Enhanced
Whitelist and sign up with Goodmail," but at least we have the time to get
organized and create a credible alternative to Goodmail based on open
standards. I was glad to see the EFF along with more and more industry
voices join the choir, including companies that could easily have chosen to
milk the Goodmail deal for all it is worth, but realized that this will
backfire in the long-term. Welcome!

Of course, it would be nice if AOL also told us what happened exactly, why
we got contradicting statements, 6 days without a clear official message,
etc. But, in all fairness, I can understand if they don't go out of their
way to explain what went wrong within AOL and/or Goodmail, and why. I have
my own ideas about this surprising schizophrenia, but I'm saving my "get in
trouble" brownies for more important public statements.

By the way, the reason I have been quiet lately is that I have sent my
comments to the press, both to give you all a break and because it's a lot
easier to get published if you haven't already self-published on a mailing
list, and it reaches a much wider audience than this list. I have a couple
opinion pieces coming out in a few days - in principle. This is a rapidly
moving target, and I know from experience that a piece you write can become
moot before the printing deadline.

Overall, I am reasonably satisfied with the press coverage. As always when
there is that much coverage, there are inaccurate articles, articles that
make fun of you, articles that twist your words, articles that claim you
have made the whole story up, etc. But most of the points that I wanted the
press to take up have either been taken up or are about to be taken up
(based on what I have been told). The most important is that we made AOL
back off. Journalists have also been provided with a set of questions and
arguments in case Yahoo should step forward, but I think they are waiting it
out, which frankly is the smart thing for them to do. Why step forward and
take flak to help a competitor?

There is a major effort underway to downplay this incident, saying it was
just a misunderstanding, that it is all over now, the whitelist is not being
phased out, it is time for everyone to go back to work and forget that this
ever happened. I will just quote again from the NY Times article: "Goodmail
was founded several years ago with the idea that it would charge postage for
all mail." To me, it makes no difference whether the current plan is for
this to happen in June 2006, January 2007, or whatever. There is NO
justification for this e-mail fee that holds the critical scrutiny that it
deserves - and is going to receive, I will see to that.

  Eric