[notacoward]

I know there are legitimate uses for something like SES, but it has always seemed a bit like "Spam as a Service" to me. Ditto for every other service that's designed around mass email, no matter how much YC startups might depend on them to "improve their conversion rate" or whatever the buzzword is this week.

[cperciva]

Spam as a Service

I'd call it "Sender Reputation Checking as a Service". Where said service is paid for by the sender, but provided to the email recipient. Anyone can send email directly; but knowing that email has been sent through SES and Amazon hasn't killed the account yet provides a greater degree of trustworthiness.

In a sense, it's like a bond rating service.

[notacoward]

...and we all know how well the bond rating services performed their function. Sorry, couldn't resist.

On a more serious note, it seems like the "greater degree of trustworthiness" is only very slightly greater. SES might be better than some server in a domain nobody ever heard of, but it's still not as good as a provider with a long history of responsible email use. Many people can and do block SES and its ilk, as is the subject of this story, because the aggregate amount of spam is so great even if the individual spammers are transient (like they care).

Amazon could raise the bar, thus raising their own reputation and thus making the service more valuable to those who can still afford/qualify to use it. It's probably just not worth their while to do so. I'm not even criticizing them for that. I'm just observing that online business has a shady side, and Amazon isn't afraid to partake.