 
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
1 edit | That's not a spam protection model It's a CanSpam model!
Although, how many true business mails does an AOL or Yahoo member receive per year. Precious few. Seems to me this is going to cost more to pay goodmail than they'll get in revenue! | |
|  | 
morph3ous
Premium
join:2002-05-16
Miami, FL | Re: That's not a spam protection model This will actually help the spammers. Since more legitimate commercial email will go to your junk folder, you will have to examine those emails more critically.
--
My Blog | |
| | | 
jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR
 ·Comcast
 ·AT&T Southwest
| Re: That's not a spam protection model Supposedly this paid SPAM will be allowed to bypass the filters. This of course will put pressure on someone, either Yahoo or the sender, to abide by the CAN-SPAM act. Perhaps the paid SPAM will have a true Opt Out link that works. If not then Yahoo or AOL will be putting the nails on their own coffins. | |
| | 
Gmail User
@toldoh.ameritech | This is why I think that Gmail is one of the best e-mail services out there. Hopefully Google won't follow AOL and Yahoo's lead. | |
| | | 
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: That's not a spam protection model said by Gmail User :
This is why I think that Gmail is one of the best e-mail services out there. Hopefully Google won't follow AOL and Yahoo's lead.
Same.
The day when email becomes fee-based (mandated) will be the day that another protocol for message exchange is necessitated.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB. | |
| jpark
join:2005-02-05
Jackson, TN | How about your Church's newsletter? AOL and Yahoo users (some at least) will doubtless have subscribed to newsletters.
How is it going to go over when they don't receive the email because the sender didn't pay AOL or Yahoo to let it through? | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: How about your Church's newsletter? Nothing on that end will change. However, add the sender to the address book, and it will be delivered to the inbox without hitting any filter. | |
| | | 
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: How about your Church's newsletter? said by fiberguy  :Nothing on that end will change. However, add the sender to the address book, and it will be delivered to the inbox without hitting any filter. thats not currently working with most aol users.. we send maybe 1500 emails a month to AOL users (and about as much to yahoo) and aol used to block 90% of them until we got on their bulk white list.. now that that's going away, i fear most if not all of our messages will get blocked before the users even see them. (Note: there are transacional [to verify signup, new message or post waiting, etc..] and 100% confirmed opt-in/requested messages)
--
Webmaster Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»ppnhosting.com
»sphenterprizes.com
»pokemonpalace.net | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: How about your Church's newsletter? Well, yea.. I am the same way. I registered my servers and follow AOL's BM rules and have for a long time. If you want to bulk mail, opt-in style, to any of the major ISPs, you're going to have to play by their rules.
However, you stated that you fear that most of your messages will now get blocked. You either need to read the article more closely, or in AOL's case read their documentation updates, your messages will be handled the same as they are now. However, if you want to PAY them, your messages are guaranteed to bypass the spam filters and go directly to the mail box. Again, all other messages WILL continue to be handled the same way and be scrutinized byt the spam filters. | |
| | | | | dannysdailys
join:2000-09-29
Lockport, NY
| Re: How about your Church's newsletter? You are incorrect and is the new AOL speak. Once the white list is gone, any bulk mailers that don't pay will be bounced. How can it be the same if the white list no longer exists?
--
Madness Takes Its Toll, Please Have Exact ChangeDan DailyOwner/Webmasterhttp://www.dannysdailys.com | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: How about your Church's newsletter? You are incorrect, Sir.
The white list is also for standard ISPs that tend to send large amounts of mail into AOL by their subscribers as well.
The new format that AOL is offering is targeted towards bulk mailing services. The white list, as I was told by our contact at AOL was that the white list will remain. | |
| | | | | | | dannysdailys
join:2000-09-29
Lockport, NY
| Re: How about your Church's newsletter? Not according to AOL's own press release. Don't fall for AOL's backpeddling. I'd bet this money grab adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars. The white list is to be completely gone by June 1st. Just Google search it; don't listen to AOL; they can't be trusted.
--
Madness Takes Its Toll, Please Have Exact ChangeDan DailyOwner/Webmasterhttp://www.dannysdailys.com | |
| 
Avder
join:2002-05-08
Moorhead, MN
| LIES! This is complete BS. I already get hundreds of spams in my yahoo inbox that could easily be caught by any half competent spam filter, and despite the fact that I keep reporting every single one as spam, they just keep coming.
I hope they at least keep letting users define custom filters so we can send user-designated spam to some junk folder. Too bad we cant send stuff directly to the bulk folder tho. | |
| raderator
join:2003-07-22
Conklin, NY
1 edit | I never get spam ..but I get the mail I want. The trick is to pick an email address that the spammers won't guess (they WILL try) but is still fairly easy for other people to remember. Try to avoid real words and real names and add numbers. Run names and words together. Don't use underscores. Much like a password.
Very few vendors will give your e-mail to spammers. I use my main email with them all the time and have not been burned. The vendor might send you stuff but you can un-subscribe.
NEVER post your real email address on the web or especially Usenet. You WILL be be spammed and you'll need a new email address .
| |
| 
gwion
wild colonial boy
Premium,ExMod 2001-08
join:2000-12-28
Pittsburgh, PA
| Spam-subsidized e-mail? One of the problematic parts of this equation, to me, is that it "legitimizes" spam... that is, if you pay your "tariff", you get a "spam stamp", and it becomes, like a form of postage, a business - we want to sell spam stamps, to subsidize the overall mail service. It becomes harder to suggest a "zero tolerence" attitude. In other words, it amounts to complete, absolute, and barely conditional (pay your spam toll, we leave you alone) surrender.
It essentially makes your and my ISP complicit in the propagation of spam.
Shall we draw an analogy? Junk mail makes the Post Office millions. So many millions, that there are special mailing rates for "postal spam". The Post Office actively encourages and makes special accomodations for junk mail, because it's such a volume-intensive medium that it makes big money, in the aggregate. Is this a model we want borrowed and applied to e-mail? Do we want spammers subsidizing the e-mail system? That's something for consideration... because that's precisely what will eventually happen, on the slippery slope of this proposal...
--
Semper Eadem
In the middle of the journey of our life I came to myself in a dark wood where the straight way was lost...
Dante, Inferno, Canto I | |
| | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·ViaTalk
| Re: Spam-subsidized e-mail? The shortcoming in your description is your definition of "spam". If it just means bulk mail, then your comments are mostly valid. However, if it means unsolicited bulk mail, which most people agree with, then it doesn't apply.
I don't have a problem with getting mailings from companies that I've done business with, as long as there's a way to opt out. Of course, this is a tiny fraction of the problem -- the real problem is the scum-spammers, the ones firing off millions of e-mails per day for Viagra, mortgages, porn, and other nonsense.
If nothing else, this system should make intelligent filtering much easier for ISPs. | |
| 
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
2 edits | The thing about AOL mail Is that you can simply put sites you want to recieve messages from on an allowed list and they will allways hit your mail box. Needless to say, this is a very usefull feature. What is so hard about asking your subscribers to do this? This way, your messages will allways get through.
At least AOL and google are trying to do something new to deal with spam, which is entirely out of control. The fact is that untill it starts to cost spammers to send mail there will be no progress towards curbing spam. You allready see sites whining about it. Amazing what a financial incentive can do when applied properly.
You dont have to pay to send mail to AOL/google addresses. Your mail will get through anyway, but will be run through the filters. What you're really paying for is for your mail to get past fhe filters and be delivered, guaranteed.
Does anyone think that spammers wont start to pay (considering how lucrative spamming seems to be) when they can pass along the cost to the company they are spamming for? It's just another business expense. In the end, it will amount to just another revenue stream to the ISP's and mail clients having to give users controls like the AOL client does and for those users to use them. Which, of course, clueless Joe and Jane box of rocks wont do unless prodded to by their favorite sites, or, whoever provides their e mail.
It's been years since I have recieved ANY spam because I use the mail controls. It's not hard to put a site on the list untill you get the confirmation mail, or, to leave it there if you want to recieve future e mail from them.And, when that site is on your list, it bypasses the filters and gets delivered to the users main box without having to pay. It amounts to the idea that users and sites should start taking some responsibility and setting things up right. If everyone used such a list, spammers would dry up and blow away because their e mail wouldn't get through, preiod. | |
| | dannysdailys
join:2000-09-29
Lockport, NY
| Re: The thing about AOL mail said by Fatal Vector :Is that you can simply put sites you want to recieve messages from on an allowed list and they will allways hit your mail box. Needless to say, this is a very usefull feature. What is so hard about asking your subscribers to do this? This way, your messages will allways get through. Because they won't. I'm on online publisher and a very large part of my mailing lists goes to AOL. If they don't all do it, I'll be bounced and my account will be flagged.
Now, I have to pay to send my free newsletter? Not in this lifetime. AOL members will suddenly be cut off from all their newletters. Clear and simple.
--
Madness Takes Its Toll, Please Have Exact ChangeDan DailyOwner/Webmasterhttp://www.dannysdailys.com | |
| | | |
|
Spam Tariff Sparks Debate