 
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY | Waaaaah! 
Nothing like crybaby spammers... | |
|  | | | |
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY | Re: Waaaaah! sorry, maybe I should read before I post...sorry. | |
| | | | kdandaoc
join:2003-10-13
608052427
| Re: Waaaaah! AOL and Yahoo are always so worried about their TOS that they forget the QOS(quality of service). This should be the foremost issue. These companies are, in essence, saying that they can not handle spam. The next offering that I forsee is an additional charge to block the crap that they themsevles allow through (revenue from both sides). I would suggest to any unfortunate person that still has these companies to forward all of their spam to the aol or yahoo sales dept.. Allow the companies that are allowing it to pass read it! | |
| | | | | | | | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam said by LiamJunket  :I don't think this is such a bad idea. Anything that further separates the legitimate advertisers from the pure garbage spammers could be a good thing. If all the legit advertisers paid and could be segregated in your inbox from the garbage companies selling un-prescribed Viagra and penis enlargers, then the true spammers could be squashed more easily. And if you don't want to see ads even from legit advertisers you can still use all the regular tools to filter them out too. Personally, I think it's a horrible idea. I run several mailing lists. These are lists that the email recipients have to issue a submission request to join, then have to confirm the request to actually get processed onto the list (that way no one can subscribe on their behalf). I run these lists for free to support a few interest groups. It's entirely possible/likely that AOL, seeing periodic large amounts of traffic from one source to multiple recipients, would want to tariff me. Since I'm doing this for free, what it ultimately means is that I will simply have to cleans the lists of any AOL subscribers and set a subscription request filter that denies AOL subscribers.
I base this fear on the fact that, during one of AOLs previous "policy decisions", my mail queues backed up with hundreds of emails until I wrote them to request the block be removed. Given AOL's money hemorrhaging, I somehow doubt one will be able to simply request exemption.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| | | 
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam
As I said here before: AOL has good mail controls. WHAT is so hard about requesting/requiring your AOL subscribers to put your sites e mail on their allowed list? Hell, you allready aggrivate them with having to get "confirmation" e mails, dont you? Many "newsletters" are nothing but shameless hype and promotion anyway.
This ensures that the mail gets to them since it doesn't go through the filters. That's simple enough, isn't it? All it really requires is a bit of knowledge about AOL mail and a few instructions on the appropriate page.
All this whining and teeth gnashing is amazing. What it amounts to is that spammers ("legitimate" or not) can pay AOL or google to allow their spam to get through to their members, guaranteed. Mail from others WILL STILL GET THROUGH, but will be routed through filters, GOT IT?
Basically, in baby talk, what it amounts to is pay for access and if you think the spammers ("legitimate" or not) wont pay when they can pass on this new cost of business to the companies that hire them, I pity you.
They WILL pay for guaranteed access if it's basically costing them nothing. Needless to say, this does absolutely NOTHING to curtail spam, regardless of the hype and teeth gnashing.
This is just another greedy money grab. For AOL it's a way to make up the losses from declining "Membership". For Google, it's just another greedy money stream, like they dont make enough as it is. I will laugh when the mighty Google finally over extends itself and comes crashing down. Then they wont be the darlings of the investment world and you watch how fast that world turns on them when they aren't raking in the money. | |
| | | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam I agree, this just makes AOL technically an indirect spammer. By taking payoffs to allow spamming, it pretty much means that AOL is doing business with these so called 'companies'. This does nothing to curtail spam, but more or less just has them pay toll.
Let's do some rough math on this...
Use a number like 10 million subs hit at $0.0025/message = $25,0000. I'm sure that both sides will look for loop holes to charge/save money (i.e. AOL internal disctribution lists count as one sub). Also, how do you charge an off shore spammer ? | |
| | | | dannysdailys
join:2000-09-29
Lockport, NY
| Being an online editor for 10 years, I'll answer a piece of this for you.
The reason people don't do permissions is the same reason they don't look at their spam box and just delete it.
They're stupid! AOL knows this and is trying to make it our problem. And, it's not just AOL, it happens to all the ISP's who use spam boxes. AOL is so big, it's a much larger problem.
I've had new subscribed members, who have to fill out a disclaimer to even join; not read ONE issue of Danny's Daily's! I'm not making this up. Another deleted the first three issues right out of the box. I deleted her when I caught it. But, I only know this because I'm on AOL. I can't check status with any other system. That's another problem.
Without the Whitelist, which is what they propose to get rid of, my email would go through their normal filters. Just the volume of it will trip their filters. This is what they're not saying. This is why the people don't realize their suddenly going to lose all their subscriptions. This could take out the whole company. This is what happens when bad ideas are taken as gospel. This actually is a war already lost when Microsoft tried to do it. Someone didn't get the memo.
I comes down to "no pay? No access to our members." Period! And don't let their doublespeak change it. There is almost no spam on AOL now, this can't be about spam.
Frankly, I take offense to be included in the same category as a spammer. Getting on their Whitelist is no big deal; staying on it is. I've been on it since it's inception. Now that's not good enough?
While I agree with the concept, I don't agree with AOL's way of doing it.
The concept is pure, AOL has turned it into a money operation. Exactly what they accused Microsoft of when they tried to do it.
These guys have to be idiots fresh out of school. And lots of bean counters eh? | |
| | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by Fatal Vector : As I said here before: AOL has good mail controls. WHAT is so hard about requesting/requiring your AOL subscribers to put your sites e mail on their allowed list? Having the users put you in their "allowed" list is of no use if there is no mail to be accepted. AoL has a habit of rejecting the message at their Gateway so it never enters the AoL Mail System in the first place (where it can be checked against each recipient’s allowed list). | |
| | | | | dannysdailys
join:2000-09-29
Lockport, NY | Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam Yes, if they get rid of the White List, that's exactly what will happen. | |
| | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spammers said by LiamJunket :I don't think this is such a bad idea. Anything that further separates the legitimate advertisers from the pure garbage spammers could be a good thing. If all the legit advertisers paid and could be segregated in your inbox from the garbage companies selling un-prescribed Viagra and penis enlargers, then the true spammers could be squashed more easily. And if you don't want to see ads even from legit advertisers you can still use all the regular tools to filter them out too. There are a couple of reasons this is a bad idea.
First, this does nothing more than to legitimize unwanted email. All this does is make more money for AOL and any other ISP that wants to buy into this idea. It's bad enough they some ISPs make money of the "pink" contracts they sell spammers.
Secondly, you are a proponent of "per=byte" charges to the consumer for access. So not only does this count against my per byte count (which I will be charged for later), but the ISP gets money from the spammer to send out the mail.
Another point is who is going to check out if these offers are fraudulent or not. Just because they pay for it, doesn't mean it is legit. How many websites are registered now with stolen credit cards? | |
| | | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam said by moonpuppy :There are a couple of reasons this is a bad idea. First, this does nothing more than to legitimize unwanted email. All this does is make more money for AOL and any other ISP that wants to buy into this idea. It's bad enough they some ISPs make money of the "pink" contracts they sell spammers. Secondly, you are a proponent of "per=byte" charges to the consumer for access. So not only does this count against my per byte count (which I will be charged for later), but the ISP gets money from the spammer to send out the mail. Another point is who is going to check out if these offers are fraudulent or not. Just because they pay for it, doesn't mean it is legit. How many websites are registered now with stolen credit cards? To address a point or two you made. AOL will still allow blocking of these msgs in your account setup: »www.usatoday.com/tech/news/compu···il_x.htm
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. That answers a couple of your points.
And this link addresses some others:
»www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1923022,00.asp
If I got a certified e-mail from a vendor I didn't want to deal with, I would feel OK about clicking the unsubscribe link.
In fact, Goodmail is planning a CertifiedUnsubscribe feature whereby they would act as an intermediary for recipients to remove them from lists. What's not to like?
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page
Conrail Photo Album | |
| | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam So why pay for a message that can still be blocked by the user? As a spammer, I would only pay for those that can be delivered.
As for the Goodmail certified mail, that idea has floated around for years. Those unsubscribe links are nothing but confirmation that the address is good enough to keep spamming.
Spammers don't follow the rules now. Think they will follow them later?  | |
| | | | |
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam said by moonpuppy :So why pay for a message that can still be blocked by the user? As a spammer, I would only pay for those that can be delivered. As for the Goodmail certified mail, that idea has floated around for years. Those unsubscribe links are nothing but confirmation that the address is good enough to keep spamming. Spammers don't follow the rules now. Think they will follow them later? But legit advertisers, who are PAYING to send you mail, will honor unsubscribe requests.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page
Conrail Photo Album | |
| | | | | |
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam
Do you SERIOUSLY think "illegitimate" spammers wont pay for guaranteed access? Get real. They will just pass on the cost to those that hired them. Maybe when it gets too expensive, companies will stop hiring them to spam. | |
| | | | | | 
GTaylor
Premium
join:2002-12-14
Frisco, TX
clubs:
| said by LiamJunket :said by moonpuppy :So why pay for a message that can still be blocked by the user? As a spammer, I would only pay for those that can be delivered. As for the Goodmail certified mail, that idea has floated around for years. Those unsubscribe links are nothing but confirmation that the address is good enough to keep spamming. Spammers don't follow the rules now. Think they will follow them later? But legit advertisers, who are PAYING to send you mail, will honor unsubscribe requests. Problem is there are plenty of legit advertisers who use shaddy third parties/spammers to do their advertising. Don't believe me? Fill out a request for a lower m*0*r*7*g*A*g*e rate and see how many Fortune 500 Companies call you within the next 24 hours.
Myself, I use Yahoo and I don't pay for it so I have no right to gripe about them using this method. But if I'm an AOL user paying $23.95 a month then yes, I'd be totally against it. | |
| | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spam said by GTaylor :Problem is there are plenty of legit advertisers who use shaddy third parties/spammers to do their advertising. Don't believe me? Fill out a request for a lower m*0*r*7*g*A*g*e rate and see how many Fortune 500 Companies call you within the next 24 hours. DING DING DING !!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!
They were discussing this last night on the NBC Nightly News. The "plausible deniability" angle is what these companies are doing now.
Now, if I could only find that website where some guy hacked a spammers system and grabbed all these photos of her ugly self and found her using email lists and hacking AOL accounts.  | |
| | 
Erwin_D
join:2003-06-30
Netherlands
| said by GOLFnSUN :
I don't think this is such a bad idea. Anything that further separates the legitimate advertisers...
Hold it right there...
You probably haven't lived on Earth long enough, but us humans have this universal truth:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "LEGITIMATE" E-MAIL MARKETING!
Only spammers (and the politicians they brainwashed/bribed) lack the knowlege of this fact. So any idea, even 'paid' ones are just conceived by spammers in order to appear more legit, which by default is impossible, as spam can never be legit.
When will people realize this? | |
| 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| hmmmmmmmm............ Just what don't they get.....it's all effing spam, and no one wants it, legit or not.....jeesh....they just want to make (more) money....besides spammers know that it is going to be next to impossible to stop them, so why pay for it....JMT
--
BlooMe | |
| RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Define SPAM One definition is any mass market (and that includes mailing lists) emailing. And considering that AOL has a history of blocking email, even domains that are not ordinarily associated with garbage spam (I know, at times I was not able to write my sister who for some reason (cheap?) puts up with AOL), you have other potential issues.
If a failing company like AOL can make this work, then it is possible that other big 'ISP' like entities will add that to the revenue stream and hold up email you want until it get paid for. Ummm....Another 'government' recovery 'fee'? The proposed government antispam tax from about six or eight years ago?
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | 
spammer01
@verizon.ne | Re: Define SPAM Spam - Penis Enlanrgement, free porn, buy this stock, ETC... | |
| 
Julio
Bachatero y Que?
Premium
join:2003-03-19
Brooklyn, NY
clubs: | if they do that then i want a cut of their profits. if its spam, i DONT WANT IT, regardless if the spammer pays the ISP or not. | |
| | AT1
join:2003-03-05
Sedalia, MO | Re: if they do that (Sounds Great!!) Yea!!!!! Sounds great!!!!!
Sell every AOL customers address to a spammer to raise revenue. How else they gonna get the address??
Another great reason to tell AOL to STUFF IT! | |
| |
almostAnEEngineer
@stmarytx.edu
| Re: if they do that What if they charged but the recipient could "give back" the money to the sender after receipt by identifying mail as non-spam? (obviousely many people on mailers are morons though so maybe if 50% or more of the recipients identify the bulk-mailer's mail as non-spam) This would eliminate the expense for legitimate mailers but would likely curb the amount of spam. -- they could even make it .25 instead of .0025 per item. | |
| | jpark
join:2005-02-05
Jackson, TN
| Not a good thing. I don't use AOL or Yahoo, so am not directly affected by this. But I would not like to see this become common practice.
I don't like spam any more than anyone else. But I can filter spam when I receive it. What I don't want is for my email provider deciding what mail I can receive and what mail I cannot receive. I certainly don't want my email provider to charge someone to send me email when I have already paid my email provider for that service. | |
| 
BoomerSooner
Premium
join:2004-02-11
·Pioneer Telephone ..
·Pioneer Internet
| What's the difference? Playing a little devil's advocate here but ...
What's the difference between an ISP charging a company to send an advertisement/SPAM through their servers versus the postal service (or any other carrier) charging a company postage to send an ad through regular snail mail?
If an advertiser can't "afford" to pay the postage, doesn't the same "free speech" argument apply? Isn't the carrier "determining" what mail you get based on the fact that they are charging the advertiser?
/devil's advocate hat off/
--
I'll take "Things Only I Would Know" for $10,000. | |
| | jpark
join:2005-02-05
Jackson, TN
| Re: What's the difference? People do pay the Post Office to deliver spam snail mail to my mailbox. People also pay the Post Office to deliver non-spam snail mail. I don't pay the Post Office to deliver mail.
When I pay an email provider for email service, then that provider charges someone to deliver the service I have already paid for, that is wrong.
Suppose your church sends a newsletter out. Because it is a newsletter, it will be flagged as spam. Your church can then pay AOL/Yahoo to let their newsletter through to you. That is not likely to happen. So you can't get the newsletter you signed up for through an email account you paid for. That is just not right. Since you paid to receive it, you should not have it intercepted by your email provider. | |
| | |
BoomerSooner
Premium
join:2004-02-11
·Pioneer Telephone ..
·Pioneer Internet
| Re: What's the difference? said by jpark : ...Suppose your church sends a newsletter out. ... /devils advocate hat back on/
So if this applied ONLY to "commercial" entities, that would be better then. If "non-profit/clubs/associations/etc etc" lists could register with those ISP's and NOT have to pay any fee, that would fly a little better then.
/devils advocate hat resting again/
--
I'll take "Things Only I Would Know" for $10,000. | |
| | | | dannysdailys
join:2000-09-29
Lockport, NY | Re: What's the difference? You guys don't seem to get it, read my note above. This puts all newsletters in the same category as spammers. | |
| | | | 
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA | But like the Do-Not-Call list, or any other such list, it can be abused and bypassed.
What's to stop some jerkoff spammer from signing up under the "non-profit/clubs/associates" lists and then ruining it for everyone?
| |
| | | | | dannysdailys
join:2000-09-29
Lockport, NY | Re: What's the difference? Easy, keep the White List and forget about the pay per nonsense. Do your own homework, if you want to hire a third party, fine; you pay them. Know what I mean? | |
| | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by BoomerSooner :Playing a little devil's advocate here but ... What's the difference between an ISP charging a company to send an advertisement/SPAM through their servers versus the postal service (or any other carrier) charging a company postage to send an ad through regular snail mail? If an advertiser can't "afford" to pay the postage, doesn't the same "free speech" argument apply? Isn't the carrier "determining" what mail you get based on the fact that they are charging the advertiser? /devil's advocate hat off/ Another thing you have to consider.
If the offer is fraudulent, the person sending the ad via postal mail can be charged with "mail fraud." Also, since this has to be paid for legitimately, they can't hide behind a zombied machine or stolen credit card.
Also, almost everyone pays to send something in the mail. You pay nothing to receive it. | |
| 
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
| Spammers delight This is a pure revenue stream for AOL, to allow spam to get to their subscribers.
AOL email marketing is such a science that spam filters are not a concern for professional, legit mailers sending solicited mail. User complaints is the defining factor, or the knee-jerk abuse button that people hit when they don't remember signing up for mail.
AOL already has cutthroat spam-complaint IP castration in effect.
The filters are only a hurdle to actual, unsolicited spam, and do a pretty good job.
While it's a good idea to put obstacles in place for spammers, $.0025 per message is not going to be a deterrent.
And, of course, the legit mailers (who will make up most of this revenue stream) will pay the price simply to enhance their deliverability and visibility as being legit. | |
| 
pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| Next thing... Next thing, AOL will charge $.0100 for mail the recipient MUST read before proceeding to their regular inbox.
Also, a new premium mail service will be started for AOL members that allows tariffed spam to be automatically blocked... only $.0200 per message or $24.95 per month, whichever is higher. | |
| claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA
| Small business killer The real problem is for small businesses who don't send spam or unsollicited mail, but who do need to reach their customers on AOL or Yahoo as part of normal business transactions. The spam tariff plan makes no distinction between one message per day and a million mails per day in blocking a sender. As it is now, one has to negotiate with AOL to be able to send mail to their customers if one is sending mail through something like a small business server directly from a DSL address. Now they're trying to tax that. It's not so much the charge per message that is the problem. It is the up front costs, yearly subscription, approval requirements, etc. For example, I know a small business that has been on the Internet for 10 years. Their DSL ISP recently decided not to run a smart host anymore, so they had to switch last month to sending mail directly from their fixed IP DSL connection. Under the Goodmail rules, they will have to wait until next year before they can be approved as a sender because the sending address has not been active for a year. Until then their mail will automatically be marked as "probable spam". You've got to love this sick twist on "free enterprise" | |
| | | |
|
|
Spamhaus, EFF Slam AOL Spam Tariff
·
Charging for spam splits legit vs illegit spammers