Having IPVM function as a wall between the communicating parties (like Craigslist or Monster) would be a better option.
Yes, from a social media standpoint that would be the way to go. Neither party would need to provide the other any identifying information, and comminucation could be effected thru an IPVM hosted mailbox.
But, I'm wondering if the capability for anonymous/semi-anonymous communication is really what were trying to acheive here.
For instance, in the current case at hand:
This came up in the comments of a new product post where an integrator, Mark, was trying to get in touch with a manufacturer, Kevin.
In this case, at least, apparently Mark would have liked to personally contact Kevin, but Kevin's link goes to his company website, which only has a way to contact the Sales department in general.
Here, note that Mark is not looking to be anonymous or avoid providing his e-mail to Kevin, he just has no way, (short of posting his email for everyone to see), to do so directly. Kevin, would assumedly be fine with Mark having his e-mail, IF he only knew of the need.
Though John, because Kevin's e-mail address is private, must contact Kevin first and provide Mark's e-mail and/or ask Kevin's permission to give his to Mark.
If this type of situation is what we are trying to solve, then we can do so by automating John's interaction here. Either by Mark requesting Kevin's e-mail and/or providing his own.
A simple way to do this would be for ipvm to filter incoming mail like so:
Mark would just send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, IPVM would strip everything out of the e-mail, except for Mark's return address, and have the subject say Mark Jones is requesting your e-mail. Then Kevin would just e-mail him directly. Or not. No spam and no hosted mail.
@Mark, would that have worked for you in this case?