April 13, 2006 2:58 PM PDT

AOL charged with blocking opponents' e-mail

America Online on Wednesday apparently began blocking e-mail on its servers containing the Web address of a petition against the company's upcoming certified-mail program, an issue the company called a "glitch."

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, adoption, spam filtering, Mexico

96 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
AOL, money and Spam, a three-way made in AO-hell
Yet another of the myriad of reasons that supports my original decision to leave AOL, several years ago.

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!
Posted by mstrhypno (49 comments )
Reply Link Flag
AOL, money and Spam, a three-way made in AO-hell
Yet another of the myriad of reasons that supports my original decision to leave AOL, several years ago.

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!
Posted by mstrhypno (49 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Why do people use AOL? <shakes head>
Why do people use AOL at all? They've been nothing but a sleaze bag organization since day one.
Posted by anarchyreigns (299 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Because
They're dumb and don't know any better. It just proves time and time again that slick marketing does work. There's millions of idiots out there that believe everything the media says.
Posted by City_Of_LA (118 comments )
Link Flag
that's b/c ppl use AOL, doesn't mean they actually pay for it.
This was certainly so back in the late 90's, early 2000's. Ppl would go around hunting for AOL trial CDs and then just switch every 2 to 3 months so they wouldn't have to pay for the service. It was reported that at any given time, 70% to 90% of AOL users were trial members.

Don't know if the same thing is still going on now, but I sure as hell wouldn't be surprised if it is.
Posted by ackmondual (199 comments )
Link Flag
Why do people use AOL? <shakes head>
Why do people use AOL at all? They've been nothing but a sleaze bag organization since day one.
Posted by anarchyreigns (299 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Because
They're dumb and don't know any better. It just proves time and time again that slick marketing does work. There's millions of idiots out there that believe everything the media says.
Posted by City_Of_LA (118 comments )
Link Flag
that's b/c ppl use AOL, doesn't mean they actually pay for it.
This was certainly so back in the late 90's, early 2000's. Ppl would go around hunting for AOL trial CDs and then just switch every 2 to 3 months so they wouldn't have to pay for the service. It was reported that at any given time, 70% to 90% of AOL users were trial members.

Don't know if the same thing is still going on now, but I sure as hell wouldn't be surprised if it is.
Posted by ackmondual (199 comments )
Link Flag
Money, Money, Money...
So I didn't have to finish this article to smell the marketing ploy here by AOL. What a company. First they throw millions of dollars away on disks that most of us use for drink coasters. Then they proceed to charge an "arm and a leg" for a souped up version of Internet Explorer (after all, that's all AOL is, a wrapper around IE created by AOL using a SDK provided by Microsoft).

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!
Posted by OneWithTech (196 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Money, Money, Money...
So I didn't have to finish this article to smell the marketing ploy here by AOL. What a company. First they throw millions of dollars away on disks that most of us use for drink coasters. Then they proceed to charge an "arm and a leg" for a souped up version of Internet Explorer (after all, that's all AOL is, a wrapper around IE created by AOL using a SDK provided by Microsoft).

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!
Posted by OneWithTech (196 comments )
Reply Link Flag
aol
i signed up with aol years ago, but have been more and more
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.
Posted by jltnol (85 comments )
Reply Link Flag
aol
i signed up with aol years ago, but have been more and more
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.
Posted by jltnol (85 comments )
Reply Link Flag
who defines "spam"
What I don't get is who defines spam? Only I, the recipient, know what I consider to be junk mail. While there is some general agreement that most unsolicited email that was sent out by thousands or millions of copies is spam and can be safely rejected by automatic filters, there is no definition of "good mail". The whole idea that AOL (or anyone else) can decide for me who is NOT spam is ridiculous.

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.
Posted by GTOfan (33 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Agree with the last part..
"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?'
Posted by Ishvale (14 comments )
Link Flag
Who in their right mind wants 'spam'.
I'm with BT.com and was the recipient of over 100 emails per day from various drug and porn outfits. BT have successfully (in my case) developed a creening process that has reduced ALL of them to zero, and allowed me use of my email again.

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.
Posted by pj-mckay (161 comments )
Link Flag
who defines "spam"
What I don't get is who defines spam? Only I, the recipient, know what I consider to be junk mail. While there is some general agreement that most unsolicited email that was sent out by thousands or millions of copies is spam and can be safely rejected by automatic filters, there is no definition of "good mail". The whole idea that AOL (or anyone else) can decide for me who is NOT spam is ridiculous.

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.
Posted by GTOfan (33 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Agree with the last part..
"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?'
Posted by Ishvale (14 comments )
Link Flag
Who in their right mind wants 'spam'.
I'm with BT.com and was the recipient of over 100 emails per day from various drug and porn outfits. BT have successfully (in my case) developed a creening process that has reduced ALL of them to zero, and allowed me use of my email again.

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.
Posted by pj-mckay (161 comments )
Link Flag
Entirely irrational
The DearAOL folks are entirely irrational on this. Goodmail is a premium delivery service like Fedex. It's an option. Fedex does not help or hurt regular mail, and the Goodmail system will not help or hurt regular email.

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: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/2006/03/fears_of_tiers.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/2006/03/fears_of_tiers.html</a>
Posted by ORinSF (57 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Thank you for your paid political statement
nt
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Link Flag
agree with you in part
First of all I think that ALL unsolicited advertisements via email should have to pay a fee just the way bulk mailings via regular postal mail does.

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.
Posted by dheadley (18 comments )
Link Flag
This is going to affect EVERYBODY
The SPAMMERS who pay the price will be able to get their junk through. The end user will have no say. It's AOL using their user base as hostage and extorting fees.
Posted by ordaj (338 comments )
Link Flag
Pure Spin
Matt's reply is pure spin. It takes a grain a truth and spin it to try and make you believe he is right.

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.
Posted by CJS-Florida (8 comments )
Link Flag
To "Entirely Irrational"
You already pay for a service and it is called "internet connection", so why do you have to pay again for this service, with a different name. So you have a phone at home, that you pay every month for it, so now you will have to pay extra everytime you want to talk, and I don't mean your cell phone.
Posted by phsvezda (9 comments )
Link Flag
Entirely irrational
The DearAOL folks are entirely irrational on this. Goodmail is a premium delivery service like Fedex. It's an option. Fedex does not help or hurt regular mail, and the Goodmail system will not help or hurt regular email.

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: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/2006/03/fears_of_tiers.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.onlyrepublican.com/orinsf/2006/03/fears_of_tiers.html</a>
Posted by ORinSF (57 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Thank you for your paid political statement
nt
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Link Flag
agree with you in part
First of all I think that ALL unsolicited advertisements via email should have to pay a fee just the way bulk mailings via regular postal mail does.

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.
Posted by dheadley (18 comments )
Link Flag
This is going to affect EVERYBODY
The SPAMMERS who pay the price will be able to get their junk through. The end user will have no say. It's AOL using their user base as hostage and extorting fees.
Posted by ordaj (338 comments )
Link Flag
Pure Spin
Matt's reply is pure spin. It takes a grain a truth and spin it to try and make you believe he is right.

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.
Posted by CJS-Florida (8 comments )
Link Flag
To "Entirely Irrational"
You already pay for a service and it is called "internet connection", so why do you have to pay again for this service, with a different name. So you have a phone at home, that you pay every month for it, so now you will have to pay extra everytime you want to talk, and I don't mean your cell phone.
Posted by phsvezda (9 comments )
Link Flag
First impressions
When AOL first brought their "closed garden" customers onto the
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.
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Reply Link Flag
First impressions
When AOL first brought their "closed garden" customers onto the
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.
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Reply Link Flag
AOL charged with blocking opponents' e-mail
SEE WHAT THIS **** AOL DID AGAINSTME - SIMPLE NAZI PERSECUTION OR DEEP COMMUNIST ERA PERSECUTIONS. BIG SHAME SUCH ******** OPERATE IN FREEDOM SYMBOL USA AND DO FULL SO MANY PEOPLE WHOSE USE THEIR E-MAIL ADDRESSES AND DO NOT KNOW HOW CRAZY AND STUPID MOVES AOL DO. CHECK THIS STORY, PLEASE: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.djsportal.com/en/articles/index.php?id=aol" target="_newWindow">http://www.djsportal.com/en/articles/index.php?id=aol</a>
Posted by Yahu Pawul (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
AOL charged with blocking opponents' e-mail
SEE WHAT THIS **** AOL DID AGAINSTME - SIMPLE NAZI PERSECUTION OR DEEP COMMUNIST ERA PERSECUTIONS. BIG SHAME SUCH ******** OPERATE IN FREEDOM SYMBOL USA AND DO FULL SO MANY PEOPLE WHOSE USE THEIR E-MAIL ADDRESSES AND DO NOT KNOW HOW CRAZY AND STUPID MOVES AOL DO. CHECK THIS STORY, PLEASE: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.djsportal.com/en/articles/index.php?id=aol" target="_newWindow">http://www.djsportal.com/en/articles/index.php?id=aol</a>
Posted by Yahu Pawul (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
sheesh people!
Anyone dumb enough to still be using AOL is probably not savvy enough to be bothered by this.
Wake up. Cancel your AOL account and start saving money and controlling your internet experience today!
Posted by skeptik (590 comments )
Reply Link Flag
sheesh people!
Anyone dumb enough to still be using AOL is probably not savvy enough to be bothered by this.
Wake up. Cancel your AOL account and start saving money and controlling your internet experience today!
Posted by skeptik (590 comments )
Reply Link Flag
AOL charged with blocking email.
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.
Posted by jimjv2005 (15 comments )
Reply Link Flag
AOL charged with blocking email.
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.
Posted by jimjv2005 (15 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not a First for AOL
Yeah... this really doesnt surprise me at all... I had a problem with them about a year ago and they gave me the run around...
I am the webmaster of my own domain (.com) and was hosting the site for a while off of a box out of my basement. It was nothing huge, so i just had a basic high speed acount with SBC. All of the sudden, any emails to AOL members were blocked. These werent mass mailings... Simply "hey how you doing" emails... After investigating, I find that they are blocking my server since its not on their accepted list. Well, that being said, I got in contact with them. What I thought would be a simple phone call of "hey add this address" turned into hell. The guy on the phone proceeds to tell me that "Well, since you dont have a dynamic IP, i cant add it. You need to either buy a static IP service or host your site with aol." So when i called ********, he got a little offended. I asked to talk to his supervisor who then tells me that they cant actually add domain names instead of IP addresses. I asked him about websites that use load sharing and he strait up tells me "No one does that, so its not an issue" I hung up on them and now bounce all my emails off of my gmail acount... AOL can freakin blow me.
Posted by severedSolace (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
AOL versus Gmail
AOL is doing what any big business will do. That is use its power to do what it wants to do.

I know Google is pretty big as well. Unfortunately, for them their users are probably more sophisticated. But, it's only a matter time for them as well.

The real problem is that AOL, Google and all the rest put making money first and customer service last. Their size has allowed them to separate the two. Small businesses cannot do that.
Posted by CJS-Florida (8 comments )
Link Flag
Not a First for AOL
Yeah... this really doesnt surprise me at all... I had a problem with them about a year ago and they gave me the run around...
I am the webmaster of my own domain (.com) and was hosting the site for a while off of a box out of my basement. It was nothing huge, so i just had a basic high speed acount with SBC. All of the sudden, any emails to AOL members were blocked. These werent mass mailings... Simply "hey how you doing" emails... After investigating, I find that they are blocking my server since its not on their accepted list. Well, that being said, I got in contact with them. What I thought would be a simple phone call of "hey add this address" turned into hell. The guy on the phone proceeds to tell me that "Well, since you dont have a dynamic IP, i cant add it. You need to either buy a static IP service or host your site with aol." So when i called ********, he got a little offended. I asked to talk to his supervisor who then tells me that they cant actually add domain names instead of IP addresses. I asked him about websites that use load sharing and he strait up tells me "No one does that, so its not an issue" I hung up on them and now bounce all my emails off of my gmail acount... AOL can freakin blow me.
Posted by severedSolace (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
AOL versus Gmail
AOL is doing what any big business will do. That is use its power to do what it wants to do.

I know Google is pretty big as well. Unfortunately, for them their users are probably more sophisticated. But, it's only a matter time for them as well.

The real problem is that AOL, Google and all the rest put making money first and customer service last. Their size has allowed them to separate the two. Small businesses cannot do that.
Posted by CJS-Florida (8 comments )
Link Flag
What is spam?
What is spam?
You can use the following to add to your spam rules database:

From Mrs Thereza John
contact my secretary now
CONTACT THE DIRECTOR IMMEDIATELY
Ich habe eine neue E-Mail-Adresse!
FROM DR GREGG OBASANJO
I have a new email address!


If you promote any of the above subject lines I hope your first born dies.
Posted by inachu (963 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What is spam?
What is spam?
You can use the following to add to your spam rules database:

From Mrs Thereza John
contact my secretary now
CONTACT THE DIRECTOR IMMEDIATELY
Ich habe eine neue E-Mail-Adresse!
FROM DR GREGG OBASANJO
I have a new email address!


If you promote any of the above subject lines I hope your first born dies.
Posted by inachu (963 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The email analogue to ending network neutrality
"Email neutrality" is equivalent in many ways to the battle over "network neutrality". Imagine the RBOCs and cable companies having the power to block any packet they don't want to deliver. That's what network neutrality is all about. Think it can't happen to us? Check out the blog-post here and read the section on Cisco's new hardware, which is being marketed to the carriers:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html" target="_newWindow">http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/end-of-internet-another-fantastic-deal.html</a>
Posted by directorblue (148 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.