- Related Stories
-
Antispam confab looks beyond filters
March 28, 2006 -
Why taxing e-mail senders is a bad idea
February 14, 2006 -
You've got (certified) mail!
February 13, 2006 -
Antispam group rejects e-mail payment plan
February 7, 2006
The Internet service provider, which has roughly 20 million subscribers in the United States, began bouncing e-mail communications with the URL "Dearaol.com" sometime late Wednesday and continuing through Thursday.
A e-mail sent by CNET News.com to an AOL.com address and containing the URL "www.dearaol.com" bounced back on Thursday afternoon with a system administrator note that read: "The e-mail system was unable to deliver the message, but did not report a specific reason."
AOL spokesman Nicholas Graham said late Thursday that AOL e-mails mentioning Dearaol.com would now be delivered as normal. The issue, he said, arose late Wednesday because of a software glitch that "affected dozens of Web links in messages," including the Dearaol.com.
"We discovered the issue early this morning, and our postmaster and mail operations team started working to identify this software glitch," he said.
Dearaol.com is a coalition of companies and individuals against AOL's adoption of GoodMail's CertifiedEmail, an antispam program that requires marketers to pay to ensure delivery of their e-mail messages and circumvent spam filters. The Web site contains an open letter and a petition that calls on people to protest what it calls an "e-mail tax" that would inhibit the Internet's inherent free flow of information and create a two-tiered system.
The e-mail tax, which could amount to a penny per e-mail sent, would essentially line AOL's pockets for ensuring delivery for affluent mass mailers, while leaving others with unreliable service in ineffective spam-filtering systems, according to the site. Nearly 600 organizations and 350,000 individuals have signed the petition so far.
Despite its quick fix, the hiccup adds fuel to a long-running controversy around GoodMail's certified-mail program and various ISPs adoption of it. Earlier this year, AOL and Yahoo said they would implement the e-mail postage program because with the rise of phishing scams and spam, they needed a way to tell legitimate marketing messages, like those advertising a sale at Jcrew.com, from junk. But their endorsement of GoodMail's system immediately spurred outcry from groups like MoveOn.org, the AFL-CIO, Gun Owners of America and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which formed the coalition Dearaol.com.
In March, AOL extended a peace offering by announcing a plan to pick up the costs for nonprofit groups that wish to send e-mails to AOL members.
AOL was expected to adopt the GoodMail system last week, but that move was delayed for unknown reasons, according to MoveOn co-founder Wes Boyd, whose group and the Electronic Frontier Foundation started the petition.
"AOL is essentially scanning e-mail for anything that's opposing their policy," Boyd said in a phone interview.
The group says it also believes the alleged blocking cements the view that an e-mail tax will harm free speech on the Internet.
"The fact is, ISPs like AOL commonly make these kinds of arbitrary decisions--silently banning huge swathes of legitimate mail on the flimsiest of reasons--every day, and no one hears about it," said Danny O'Brien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "AOL's planned CertifiedEmail system would let them profit from this power by offering to charge legitimate mailers to bypass these malfunctioning filters."
Graham said that AOL has yet to implement the GoodMail system, but plans to do so imminently. When it does adopt the certified mail program, AOL will continue to operate its white lists, or lists of accepted e-mail senders, he said. In addition, the company plans to start a registration system for nonprofits and other groups wishing to send e-mail to subscribers so that they would avoid spam filters.
See more CNET content tagged:
America Online Inc., petition, spam filtering, adoption, Mexico
AOL's ads say that they will "protect users from spammers." Yet the new Premium mail system allows spam mail services to circumvent AOL's spam filters simply by PAYING AOL off!
How does this "new feature" constitute anything other than false advertising? How does "allowing spam mail services to pay AOL off to by-pass AOL's vaunted e-mail anti-spam filters" possibly amount to any kind of protection from spam - other than to maybe protect users from spammers who refuse to pay AOL off?
In other words, AOL will protect users from spammers who are too cheap to pay AOL enough to get past their spam filters!
Oh, yeah, right...! At that point, it becomes "paid advertising!"
AOL - Advertising Over Logic.
Sheesh!
AOL's ads say that they will "protect users from spammers." Yet the new Premium mail system allows spam mail services to circumvent AOL's spam filters simply by PAYING AOL off!
How does this "new feature" constitute anything other than false advertising? How does "allowing spam mail services to pay AOL off to by-pass AOL's vaunted e-mail anti-spam filters" possibly amount to any kind of protection from spam - other than to maybe protect users from spammers who refuse to pay AOL off?
In other words, AOL will protect users from spammers who are too cheap to pay AOL enough to get past their spam filters!
Oh, yeah, right...! At that point, it becomes "paid advertising!"
AOL - Advertising Over Logic.
Sheesh!
Don't know if the same thing is still going on now, but I sure as hell wouldn't be surprised if it is.
Don't know if the same thing is still going on now, but I sure as hell wouldn't be surprised if it is.
Antispyware that's installed, it's AdAware and Spybot Search and Destroy. Check the contents of an AOL disk you'll see! So FYI all of you paying for AOL take note to the above sentences'.
Furthermore the latest ploy to make "Marketeers" pay for passing content will turn into another service. A premium service that you will have to PAY for to KEEP the VERY MARKETEERS out of the EMAIL that pay for the service.
That's all "PICKLED" UP!
I'm in it for the people and I'm seeing people GET SCREWED!
~Justin
PS. AOL works terrible on OS X, TERRIBLE!
Antispyware that's installed, it's AdAware and Spybot Search and Destroy. Check the contents of an AOL disk you'll see! So FYI all of you paying for AOL take note to the above sentences'.
Furthermore the latest ploy to make "Marketeers" pay for passing content will turn into another service. A premium service that you will have to PAY for to KEEP the VERY MARKETEERS out of the EMAIL that pay for the service.
That's all "PICKLED" UP!
I'm in it for the people and I'm seeing people GET SCREWED!
~Justin
PS. AOL works terrible on OS X, TERRIBLE!
unhappy with their service lately.. very slow downloads.. Mac OSX
client that is the WORST Mac software written.. It's halfway set up
as my business e-mail address, but it's time for me to drop them
completly.. they just aren't worth it anymore.
unhappy with their service lately.. very slow downloads.. Mac OSX
client that is the WORST Mac software written.. It's halfway set up
as my business e-mail address, but it's time for me to drop them
completly.. they just aren't worth it anymore.
I think the general concensus is right: This is a money-making ploy for AOL, and has little to do with improving quality of service or better filters for its customers - the "regular" spam will still get through if it can pass the filter tests, just as it does today. This proposal only benefits the paid spam-subscribers who want to force their email to AOL customers, with no benefit for the customers themselves. It will likely increase the spam received because in addition to getting all the current well-crafted spam messages that get through the filters, new "paid" spam will be added.
If AOL really wanted to help, they would implement their email source-verification plans, putting verified email in one box, and those with spoofed email addresses in another. Then give the AOL customers the tools to filter what's left: Anyone using a real email address would make it directly into my in-box, and those spoofed or who use email servers that do not provide verification would get dumped into a "when I have time I might read it" inbox.
It's clear that AOL can't make money on the latter system, so they are trying to force people into this other scheme. It doesn't affect me, since I am not an AOL customer - but AOL customers can speak up for themselves, or just move to another provider.
And that's exactly right. They have every right to treat their email however they want. You or I may not like it, but it's their system. If AOL is happy, and their customers are happy (???***), then this story doesn't even deserve it's own headline. Of course, there's still no getting around the question 'people are still using AOL?'
You guys appear to be of the opinion that you want all this guff to then decide for yourself. Believe me.. anyone I know that's had this experience quickly wants out.
I'm happy to go online and delete my spam folder every few weeks (normally a couple of thousand mails there in that time), but no way do I want this delivered to me. For genuine mass mail that we do want it can be catered for by legitimately signing up to expect it.
As for costs... why shouldn't someone pay up for using bandwidth and systems. Theres nothing free in this world so why expect mass mail for free? The postman doesn't take it for nothing so why should an ISP (and others will follow AOLs lead)? I dare say my email will one day cost me money.. so what? If we don't pay, they'll stop delivering and cut their costs. Text messages cost money and nobody complains so why not email? So long as the benefits justify the cost I can't see a problem in charging a small fee of some sort.
I think the general concensus is right: This is a money-making ploy for AOL, and has little to do with improving quality of service or better filters for its customers - the "regular" spam will still get through if it can pass the filter tests, just as it does today. This proposal only benefits the paid spam-subscribers who want to force their email to AOL customers, with no benefit for the customers themselves. It will likely increase the spam received because in addition to getting all the current well-crafted spam messages that get through the filters, new "paid" spam will be added.
If AOL really wanted to help, they would implement their email source-verification plans, putting verified email in one box, and those with spoofed email addresses in another. Then give the AOL customers the tools to filter what's left: Anyone using a real email address would make it directly into my in-box, and those spoofed or who use email servers that do not provide verification would get dumped into a "when I have time I might read it" inbox.
It's clear that AOL can't make money on the latter system, so they are trying to force people into this other scheme. It doesn't affect me, since I am not an AOL customer - but AOL customers can speak up for themselves, or just move to another provider.
And that's exactly right. They have every right to treat their email however they want. You or I may not like it, but it's their system. If AOL is happy, and their customers are happy (???***), then this story doesn't even deserve it's own headline. Of course, there's still no getting around the question 'people are still using AOL?'
You guys appear to be of the opinion that you want all this guff to then decide for yourself. Believe me.. anyone I know that's had this experience quickly wants out.
I'm happy to go online and delete my spam folder every few weeks (normally a couple of thousand mails there in that time), but no way do I want this delivered to me. For genuine mass mail that we do want it can be catered for by legitimately signing up to expect it.
As for costs... why shouldn't someone pay up for using bandwidth and systems. Theres nothing free in this world so why expect mass mail for free? The postman doesn't take it for nothing so why should an ISP (and others will follow AOLs lead)? I dare say my email will one day cost me money.. so what? If we don't pay, they'll stop delivering and cut their costs. Text messages cost money and nobody complains so why not email? So long as the benefits justify the cost I can't see a problem in charging a small fee of some sort.
Most people are generally satisfied with sending (and receiving) Fedex, yes? Has anyone ever claimed that has somehow hurt our ability to communicate? The customers should make the call, not the pontificators.
More here: http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/2006/03/fears_of_tiers.html
NOONE should EVER be able to set up a server on the internet and just send out millions of emails a day for nothing but the cost of the internet connection/bandwidth.
All ISP's should be required by law to charge for advertisement emails, not just exclusive ones the way this is set up. And there should be different available levels of delivery also like there is 2nd class, 1st class, express etc with each step up charging a higher fee and assuring delivery to a certain extent or allowing for added stuff like pictures/html.
Personally I think it is far too easy for people to send out spam on the internet with the present system. Also I am pretty much tired of everyone defending the people that send out spam emails. They take up space in the mail box that I pay my ISP for, basically forcing me to pay them for their junk email that I never wanted in the first place. It is just as bad as the people that call your cell phone to advertise using up your minutes that you pay for on a call you didn't want in the first place.
I am in favor of any charge added to the email advertiser that would make them have to think about how much they want to spend on emails and then maybe they will reduce the number of absolute garbage that gets sent out.
Also there should be a list for land-lines, cell phones and email that you put your number/address on and anyone sending you stuff/phoning you afterwards should be held liable for serious fines for violating the list.
I think people that say that it should be the internet user that should pay for spam software if they don't want to see these emails are completely stupid. I shouldn't have to constantly fool around with the rules on my email to block this or that person. I shouldn't have to make dummy email accounts on free sites to filter out junk mail. I really don't think people should be able to make anonymous email accounts all over the internet at all. They should all be required to be tied to someone that can be easily identified by the police if needed.
Goodmail is NOT like FedEx.
Goodmail is a way for AOL to avoid it's responsibilities to provide what it calls 'free' spam filtering. By the way, FedEx will ship anything; it never contends that it will filter unwanted packages.
Most people are generally satisfied with sending (and receiving) Fedex, yes? Has anyone ever claimed that has somehow hurt our ability to communicate? The customers should make the call, not the pontificators.
More here: http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/2006/03/fears_of_tiers.html
NOONE should EVER be able to set up a server on the internet and just send out millions of emails a day for nothing but the cost of the internet connection/bandwidth.
All ISP's should be required by law to charge for advertisement emails, not just exclusive ones the way this is set up. And there should be different available levels of delivery also like there is 2nd class, 1st class, express etc with each step up charging a higher fee and assuring delivery to a certain extent or allowing for added stuff like pictures/html.
Personally I think it is far too easy for people to send out spam on the internet with the present system. Also I am pretty much tired of everyone defending the people that send out spam emails. They take up space in the mail box that I pay my ISP for, basically forcing me to pay them for their junk email that I never wanted in the first place. It is just as bad as the people that call your cell phone to advertise using up your minutes that you pay for on a call you didn't want in the first place.
I am in favor of any charge added to the email advertiser that would make them have to think about how much they want to spend on emails and then maybe they will reduce the number of absolute garbage that gets sent out.
Also there should be a list for land-lines, cell phones and email that you put your number/address on and anyone sending you stuff/phoning you afterwards should be held liable for serious fines for violating the list.
I think people that say that it should be the internet user that should pay for spam software if they don't want to see these emails are completely stupid. I shouldn't have to constantly fool around with the rules on my email to block this or that person. I shouldn't have to make dummy email accounts on free sites to filter out junk mail. I really don't think people should be able to make anonymous email accounts all over the internet at all. They should all be required to be tied to someone that can be easily identified by the police if needed.
Goodmail is NOT like FedEx.
Goodmail is a way for AOL to avoid it's responsibilities to provide what it calls 'free' spam filtering. By the way, FedEx will ship anything; it never contends that it will filter unwanted packages.
Internet they were shunned by the Internet community who saw
them as interlopers who didn't didn't know how to act correctly
online.
IMO, this fiasco in the making proves our first impressions were
100% correct.
Internet they were shunned by the Internet community who saw
them as interlopers who didn't didn't know how to act correctly
online.
IMO, this fiasco in the making proves our first impressions were
100% correct.
Wake up. Cancel your AOL account and start saving money and controlling your internet experience today!
Wake up. Cancel your AOL account and start saving money and controlling your internet experience today!
- AOL charged with blocking email.
- by jimjv2005 April 14, 2006 6:48 AM PDT
- Well, in my personal opinion AOL won't last long anyway with the pull out of Time Worner. AOL may as well forget it and just become a web porthole in my personal opinion.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (96 Comments)