Their logic fails by its own reasoning.
So, because some Admins have chosen to disable VRFY, because of Spammers, those of us who chose to verify where an eMail comes -- as being real or not because of Spammers -- are somehow abusing their choice to not verify? Maybe we should install Chirpy's dictionary attack prevention script for those Admins because they don't seem smart enough to do something similar themselves.
They seem to be trying to profit by exploiting differing opinions, choosing a side, marking the other side as bad, and charging to unlist them. Interesting.
I understand their one supposed claim that VRFY might increase backscatter, and increase overall processing on other servers. However, what of the increased processing of the actual, full, bounced back mail to a non-existent address?
If my server doesn't accept a message because it can't verify, the only processing was me calling out to alleged sender, and that server say yes/no. However, if I accept the message with the non-verified address, and then bounce it back to such address, I have used more processing on my end, and if I can't deliver the bounce to the 'fake sender' server, my server will attempt to deliver it for a few days.
So, instead of a single "hey, is this your email?" process, we would have a multiple "hey, I can't deliver this, take it back", "hey, anyone there? you sent this to us and I just wanted to let you know their mailbox is full", "hello? you tried to send this message, and I've been trying to return it to you as undeliverable for a couple days now. everything ok on your end? I'll try again tomorrow."
So, which is the backscatter and waste of server processing?