AOL Madness (Warn Your Friends)

“This is from a newsletter I get from Fred Langa...


2) AOL Madness (Warn Your Friends)

AOL is at it again. This time, it's reading *inside* its members'
emails, and preemptively blocking any messages that contain links to
sites that AOL doesn't want you to see.

Note: I'm *not* talking about simple mail blocks, where a mail is
discarded if it originates from a "forbidden" address. No: AOL is
parsing the content of its members' emails and blocking them even if
they merely *mention* a site that AOL disapproves of.

This happened to my last newsletter issue, when I mentioned a perfectly
valid and inoffensive link: http://www.codeproject.com/ . It turns out
that last summer, in July, AOL put that site on its naughty list for
some unexplained reason, and ever since has blocked all emails that even
contain a link to that address.

When my list-host ( http://dundee.net ) noticed huge numbers of AOL
emails bouncing back, they preemptively sought to find out why, and the
folks at AOL then removed the block--- on that one address.

AOL's mail system is just this side of insane. Not only does it read
inside member emails for links that AOL doesn't like, but--- as we've
reported before--- if AOL members get a little lazy and block a
newsletter like this one, instead of unsubscribing, AOL keeps track of
the blocks. Last time I looked, if as few as 10 readers took the lazy
way out of stopping a mailing, AOL would assume that the mail in
question was spam. In my case, if just 10 AOL users out of 160,000
readers--- that's 0.00006 of my readers--- took the lazy way off the
list, all AOL subscribers would have their legitimate issues blocked for
some time thereafter.

AOL's user-level mail filters are nearly useless because the master
filters discard emails before they ever make it to the users' mailboxes
and the local filters there. That means AOL members can white-list
senders to their heart's content but it will have no effect at all on
the pre-filtering that's done by AOL before their mail ever gets
delivered. AOL's user-level mail controls are a little like those fake
thermostats you sometimes see in office buildings that are meant to give
occupants the illusion of local control, when in reality, a central
system is making all the real decisions.

Noted tech writer Brian Livingston also has been struggling with this,
as he reported in http://briansbuzz.com/w/040408/ . Just look at the jaw-
dropping failure rates he found:

I've written many times that Internet service providers (ISPs)
are mishandling the growing menace of spam by imposing crude
"junk-mail filters" that delete legitimate messages without
notifying the intended recipients of that fact.

...AOL "bounced" about 88% of the newsletters that had been
sent to subscribers who use aol.com e-mail addresses. The
problem was also severe at subsidiaries owned by AOL,
including cs.com (which bounced 88%) and netscape.net (96%).

...[AOL's] filter simply deletes huge quantities of mail
without ever delivering it...
(click link above for full article)

If you have friends on AOL, you may wish to tell them about this (
http://www.langa.com/sendit.htm ) so they'll know why their email is so
unreliable. Of course, there's no guarantee they'll see your email, just
as there's no guarantee that legitimate subscribers to this newsletter
on AOL will get this issue....

But there's a glimmer of hope: For the first time ever, AOL's membership
has started to shrink significantly. Users are finally realizing they
can get better service at lower costs from other ISPs. Perhaps if enough
members vote with their dollars, AOL will wake up and meaningfully
change its Big Brother-ish ways.”

“That's not a big deal. I could write a simple script that would delete any emails containing links to certain domains. And that's automated...if someone wanted to read your email it wouldn't be hard. When I had an internship in an IS department as a freshman in college I used to log into the email server and read people's email...most if it's pretty boring.”

“Perhaps its not a big deal, but I don't think your ISP should be deciding what email you receive.”

“Dub, you dang hacker you!

anyway, I always disliked AOL. Now I have to start wondering why some of my clients didn't receive their email huh??

I think my first ISP ever was AOL way back then, after aol I went to sprynet, until they dumped me because I was online too long.”

“If you are on a computer at work your boss has had the ability to do this for years.

When your network upgrades....”

“Why can't they decide what email you read? Afterall it is THEIR network. I think this is a step in the right direction to eliminate spam which eats a ton of their bandwidth each year. More spam = higher net access prices. I mean YOU are using THEIR network...if you don't like their policies you can always go to another subscriber.

AOL sucks anyway...you could always get yourself a T1. There would be no restrictions on it and you would be paying for the bandwidth so you could do as you please. But I don't think you can tell a private company what they can and cannot do with their network.”

“So what you are saying is your ISP has the right to decide what email you receive, to decided what you should be reading?

Interesting.

I wouldn't recommend that anyone use email for secure messages or anything that they really didn't want someone to possibly read, but I suspect that most folks expect to be able to receive most email with out worrying if their ISP think a link in it is appropriate or not.

I remember a few years ago AOL search engines were censoring things that they deemed inappropriate, like many left wing political organizations...even MADD.

Thank God the Post Office doesn't do that....





They don't....do they?”

“I have never used AOL by the way...as you said


IT SUCKS”

“well, i'm confused.

aol/time-warner is liberal and wouldnt block left wing sites though...”

“This was before the Time-Warner buy out....”

“If I discovered that someone was reading my email, I'd chop their fucking head off. Then I'd sue their ass.

Credibility is a funny thing. Once it's gone, it's gone... especially in the IT business.”

“I KNEW YOU WERE A TICKINHG TIME BOMB, TILT....”

“I havn't used AOL since 1997.”

“Thank goodness you didn't threaten to cut their #&%!$ off...that would have been censored ;-)”

“I was stupid and loaded a free AOL cd once that I got in the mail and I got a virus on my computer. I know it was from the CD and I called AOL to ask them how to remove it and because I am not a customer they would not help me. They said the CD couldn't be from them because their CD's didn't have viruses. I was sooo mad.. it took me a week to remove that virus!”

“I got a 6 month membership with one of my dell computers. guess what? I still have it. It's not used. That should tell you something....”

“They're baaaaaaaad news.”

“I wonder what the law says about reading other people's email. When you send an email it is routed in little pieces (packets) across a dozen networks. Each network receives a copy of the email. So everytime you send an email a dozen copies are created...so who knows who is reading your email? It's something easy to do and quite common, especially in the workplace. I doubt you could sue anyone over it because you'd never find out, period. They even make a t-shirt about it for us IT professionals:

I read your email t-shirt

”

“So what you are saying is your ISP has the right to decide what email you receive, to decided what you should be reading?

We had an OC3 connection where I worked so bandwidth was an issue as it cost money. We often received a ton of spam from yahoo and hotmail accounts. Thus we blocked all mail originating from those addresses. So yes, we decided that we'd block it and no there was nothing anyone could do about it. What's funny is AOL will often block emails from certain locations...ask Slack about it, I'm sure he's had to call AOL several times to get the domain name of his ISP freed up so his customers could send AOL customers email.”

“well, i'm confused.

aol/time-warner is liberal and wouldnt block left wing sites though..."
stratdewd

Huh? Aol "liberal"? They are ultra-conservative! That's why they believe in censorship and no privacy rights.”

“working at an isp is pretty instructive in the workings of man

not that i read any email or anything”

“There are definitely better and cheaper ISP's out there.”

“aol does in fact suck.”

“For advanced internet users it sucks...but for computer illiterate people it's easy.”

“Notwithstanding the thinkgeek t-shirt, you could be criminally liable under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and/or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984 and your employer could be liable to a civil action based on your exploits. At a bare minimum, you put a big dent ion the ACM's Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.

But to admit to such behavior on an open Internet forum....”

“yeah, AOL fills a need for people who can barely turn on the computer, but that's about it.

I'm convinced that if they didn't give away the service for the first couple of months they'd have way fewer users. People hate to change something once they've started using it.”

“Funny thing is...my employer showed me how to log into the POP servers and check out the emails. Messages stored on our server is company property regardless of who is going to download them. We broke 0 laws. How many servers scan your email for virii? To scan the message it must be opened and read. Whether that's a computer or person it makes no difference. You have no privacy with email and you have no rights unless it originates from a government server and is marked confidential. And until you can show me a specific law saying otherwise (rather than quoting the good ol EPA84/99) myself, and many companies, including your boss will continue to read emails that don't belong to us. If you don't want people reading your email, encrypt it. But like I said, most people's email is boring.

And OMG, I admitted this on an open forum...now I'll never get a job because every job I apply for the employer reads each of my trail talk posts and asks you guys for a reference!”

“And BTW, you agree to such privacy invasions through your user agreement and/or employment contract. Most people don't have any idea that the clause is there.”

“Like I said ---- once your credibility is gone, it's gone.”

“Such skills are valued by most employers. Nothing like saving a company money by finding people who abuse internet services at work. I bet you $100 that I could admit to hacking anything I wanted to on this forum and it will never, ever, hurt my credibility for a real, full-time w/benefits job here in Ohio. $100

And what about Spyware since we're on the subject? If such privacy tampering is illegal...then how do so many companies get away with installing spyware on your system that captures email addresses you use, uploads data on what programs you use on your computer, what websites you visit, what files and file types you use...what about those issues? Do you think Matt can't see your password for TT if he wanted? Do you think he can't track your multiple accounts through a simple database that captures and stores your IP address, subnet, and MAC information? If you think you have any rights against this stuff then you'd better stop using the internet because you don't. Your information is not safe in the least.”

“Actually, just this week Congress took up debate on the spyware issue. This is a clear privacy invasion. The spyware doesn't originate from an employer and the originator has no vested interest, other than to try and sell something, in what internet sites I visit. They write files to my computer without my knowledge or consent and in some cases actually do harm to my system, at the least through causing decreased performance efficiency.

Spyware should be illegal, its way worse than spam mail in my opinion. Spam is an annoyance, spyware actuall phuks up my system.”

“I should clarify my POV. At my old job it was my job to read your email and see what websites you visited. Internet was handled through Advanced Server which has a wonderful add-on program that tracks everything about the users attached to the system. What websites they visited, how long they stayed, any info they submitted, etc. Our email server was Novell. I helped in the termination of 4 employees due to abuse. One was very intelligent and illusive--he would log onto public/client computers that required no username and he would log into other associates computers when they were gone for lunch, etc. We ended up installing cameras over the client computers and busted him by using the timestamp from the camera comparing it to the timestamp on the computer. I did nothing wrong. I was doing my job. I broke no laws. I did nothing unethical.

Now if I logged into Yahoo and read Tilt's emails now that would be unethical and probably illegal. But if I worked at Yahoo, it wouldn't be. That's my point. I think I'll wear my "I read your email" shirt to an in-town TT event.”

“If you signed an employment agreement stating such or it was company policy and that policy was made known to you, you have no right to privacy while on a company owned computer system. Period.”

“Exactly. It all boils down to user agreements. What I've been saying the whole time. AOL can block what they like.”

“If you read other people's email, it was an a invasion of privacy and a breach of ethics. I think your employer was unethical and taught you some bad habits.

If you want to block internet functionality to employees, fine. If you want to read their email... uncool. Period.

It's no better than spyware.”

“Employers have been listening in on phone calls for decades, how is reading email any different? There are laws concerning telephone use (they are not allowed to record or listen in once they establish it is a personal, non-business related call). But no such laws exist for email. People are fired everyday for violating internet usage policies in the workplace. Most of the time it's related to the websites they frequent, sometimes it's email.”

“I suggest gmail for you AOL/Yahoo users ...

http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3581301”

“Yes but Gmail, google-owned, records and keeps track of all its user's emails--just as they do with their users search histories--This means that if you are say a terrorist, or even if you are just an adulterous, you could have your entire email history subpoenaed by the courts and used against you.

This is a pretty scary thought.
last edited: 2/05/06 10:41:45 PM”

“Yahoo is thinking about this too...

By Jon Swartz, USA TODAY
SAN FRANCISCO — America Online will begin charging businesses to send commercial e-mail to its users in the first wide-scale use of authenticated e-mail to reduce spam. But some marketers affected by the plan, set to start in several weeks, call it e-mail taxation designed to create a new stream of revenue for AOL.
The certified e-mail system would require advertisers to pay $2 to $3 per 1,000 messages. The plan is optional, though AOL and its tech partner, Goodmail Systems, cannot guarantee that all non-certified e-mail with Web links and images will be delivered.

"This is all about protecting consumers from spam, phishing, viruses and fraud," says Richard Gingras, CEO of Goodmail.

If successful, the plan could entice other Internet service providers to follow. Yahoo plans to test Goodmail's system to certify e-mail for transactions such as financial statements and shipping confirmations.

Certified e-mail has become a hot topic in e-mail circles because many ISPs — out of security concerns — block messages with images and Web links. The AOL system would ensure such messages pass its stringent e-mail defenses and reach its 25.5 million subscribers worldwide. Gingras compares the system to certified postal mail.

"This will be painful for marketers in the beginning, but it is a positive step in forcing them to be more selective in who they e-mail," says Jupiter Research's David Daniels. "Many now just blast e-mail rather than target an audience."

Anyone can apply for the program. Goodmail determines if applicants are legitimate companies with pristine e-mail standards. AOL has final approval. E-mail of approved companies will come with digital tokens recognized by AOL security defenses. AOL subscribers will still be able to block mail from certified senders by adjusting anti-spam tools on their accounts, AOL spokesman Nicholas Graham says.

AOL says The New York Times and American Red Cross have signed up for the service. Spending on e-mail marketing is expected to jump 24%, to $1.1 billion, by 2010 from $885 million in 2005, Jupiter Research estimates.

Still, the revamped commercial e-mail system could have unintended consequences for some marketers and consumers.

"It's taxation of the good guys with cash, and it does nothing to help the good guys who can't afford the cost or to deter the bad guys who spam anyway," says Matt Blumberg, CEO of Return Path, an e-mail services company. "Baloney," says AOL's Graham, scoffing at suggestions the e-mail system amounts to taxation. "That's competitive chatter and sour grapes."

Consumers, meanwhile, may discover that some commercial e-mail they previously received, and wanted, no longer arrives if advertisers opt not to pay AOL, some e-mail marketers warn. E-mail users would need to retrieve them from a spam folder.

"This takes a system that works and shoves a stick in the flywheel of communication," says Jordan Ayan, CEO of SubscriberMail, an e-mail service provider for high-tech, media and sports companies.”

“mtnsteve - That's the same thing as above.

broome - AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc ... they all have your emails too. In fact, most of them do.”