Re: AOL Postmaster

[Adrian Lamo <adrian () adrian org>]

The quickest way of contacting the AOL Mail Team I'm aware of is through 
their Twitter account at @AOLMail (https://twitter.com/AOLMail). Tell 
them @6 sent you. ;)

Cordially,
A

-


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
vox: +1 202 459 9800 x.1300 // secure: +1 410 874 0050
(phone calls need to be arranged in advance)
e: adrian () 2600 COM // e: adrian.lamo () us army mil

GPG/PGP public key: https://keybase.io/comsec/key.asc
PGP Fingerprint (64 bit): 324B EE81 A275 E619
(COMSEC First! Verify fingerprint before using key.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



El 2015-02-24 13:03, Suresh Ramasubramanian escribió:
> And how many users do you have, again?
> On Feb 24, 2015 6:29 PM, "Colin Johnston" <colinj () gt86car org uk> 
> wrote:
>
> > block aol like china blocks with no engagement of comms as 
> > justification
> >
> > colin
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 24 Feb 2015, at 12:36, Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 03:19:06AM +0100, Fred wrote:
> > >> Having exactly the same issue. Also never received any response from
> > >> AOL. Quite annoying.
> > >
> > > I've been waiting since January 26th for a response from
> > dmarc-help () teamaol com,
> > > which is their stipulated contact point for DMARC issues.
> > >
> > > Of course I wouldn't *need* a response about that if they hadn't
> > implemented
> > > DMARC so foolishly.
> > >
> > > It seems that the days when Carl Hutzler ran the place -- and ran it
> > well --
> > > are now well behind them.  I didn't always agree with their decisions,
> > > but it was obvious that they were working hard and trying to make AOL a
> > > good network neighbor, so even when I disagreed I could at least
> > acknowledge
> > > their good intentions.   It seems now that AOL is determined to permit
> > > unlimited abuse directed at the entire rest of the Internet while
> > > simultaneously making life as difficult as possible for everyone who
> > > *doesn't* abuse...and is counting on their size to make them immune from
> > > the consequences of that decision.
> > >
> > > ---rsk