Re: AOL Charged With Blocking Opponents' e-Mail

["Dude VanWinkle" <dudevanwinkle () gmail com>]

Still you guys are missing the point,

Email should be a method of communication, not a method of advertising.
Think of it as a cell phone: Do you want advertising on your mobe? Would
you like to give companies incentives to advertise on this medium? Why
are you putting up with it on email then?

AOL just wants a way to make up for missing out on the internet
advertising revenue, and I don't blame them. Still we havent shown
advertisers that sending averts via SMTP is wrong, and look at what
happened, more than half of all traffic is now spam. Using the phone
analogy, how would you like over half of all your calls to be
solicitations? If you disagree with the cell phone analogy, just replace
cell phone with regular phone.

First person who mentions CAN-SPAM as "telling advertisers they
shouldn't spam" is getting signed up for so much gay porn spam they will
qualify to be ordained as a catholic priest. ;-)

-JP

On 4/14/06, Larry Seltzer <larry () larryseltzer com> wrote:
> > > the amount of so-called targeted marketing that is based on interests or
> "business relationships" will likely surge.  To most people, that e-mail is
> still spam.
>
> Read the Goodmail terms: you have to have a complaint threshold within
> certain bounds. All the mailing lists are opt-in. Mailers have to honor
> unsubscribes. What else can you reasonably require as an accreditation
> service? That nobody be offended by receiving mail that they asked for?
>
> > > The bottom line is this: no outside agency has any right to decide what
> e-mail is or is not spam.  If I choose to question their decision, I ought
> to have that right.
>
> This position is obviously unreasonable. Almost everyone gets their mail
> through an ISP and ISPs are expected to provide spam filtering. Apart from
> blacklists and whitelists I don't see how you can let users define the
> criteria
>
> > > That means it's my decision to label your "certified" e-mail spam and NOT
> have my ISP's filter deliver it to me anyway.
>
> Of course you can do that, but if you received it you asked for it (assuming
> the system is working as designed). Goodmail is working on a system whereby
> when you click the "Spam" button in AOL or through a similar facility the
> request will be passed on as an unsubscribe or complaint
> (http://www.goodmailsystems.com/senders/faq.php#f4).
>
> > > Further, I also have the right to expect that e-mail will be delivered to
> me WITHOUT BIAS if I decide that similar e-mail (even if uncertified) is not
> spam.  Goodmail takes control of my inbox away from me.  Therefore, it's a
> TERRIBLE idea.
>
> Uncertified e-mail has nothing to do with Goodmail. Such e-mail will be
> delivered according to current policies just as before Goodmail. This is the
> point that DearAOL people are persistantly ignoring and denying without
> basis.
>
> > > AOL's choice to censor opposition to its misguided proposal (which
> ultimately screws consumers and only benefits advertisers) only provides
> further warrant to the claim that AOL will not be inclined to make the best
> choice for the consumer.
>
> I don't know what to make of this; what is AOL censoring?
>
> Larry Seltzer
> eWEEK.com Security Center Editor
> http://security.eweek.com/
> http://blog.eweek.com/blogs/larry%5Fseltzer/
> Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
> larryseltzer () ziffdavis com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.