said by moonpuppy :

There are a couple of reasons this is a bad idea.

First, this does nothing more than to legitimize unwanted email. All this does is make more money for AOL and any other ISP that wants to buy into this idea. It's bad enough they some ISPs make money of the "pink" contracts they sell spammers.

Secondly, you are a proponent of "per=byte" charges to the consumer for access. So not only does this count against my per byte count (which I will be charged for later), but the ISP gets money from the spammer to send out the mail.

Another point is who is going to check out if these offers are fraudulent or not. Just because they pay for it, doesn't mean it is legit. How many websites are registered now with stolen credit cards?

AOL subscribers will still be able to block mail from certified senders by adjusting anti-spam tools on their accounts, AOL spokesman Nicholas Graham says.

If I got a certified e-mail from a vendor I didn't want to deal with, I would feel OK about clicking the unsubscribe link.

In fact, Goodmail is planning a CertifiedUnsubscribe feature whereby they would act as an intermediary for recipients to remove them from lists. What's not to like?

said by moonpuppy :

So why pay for a message that can still be blocked by the user? As a spammer, I would only pay for those that can be delivered.

As for the Goodmail certified mail, that idea has floated around for years. Those unsubscribe links are nothing but confirmation that the address is good enough to keep spamming.

Spammers don't follow the rules now. Think they will follow them later?

said by TKJunkMail :

But legit advertisers, who are PAYING to send you mail, will honor unsubscribe requests.

said by GTaylor :

Problem is there are plenty of legit advertisers who use shaddy third parties/spammers to do their advertising. Don't believe me? Fill out a request for a lower m*0*r*7*g*A*g*e rate and see how many Fortune 500 Companies call you within the next 24 hours.