Yet another reason to Hate AOL [Archive]

Peter Gottlieb

July 2nd 04, 07:33 PM

I am president of a local Realtor's group and we had the same problems.

First we got blocked as spam because we sent "bulk mail" to 23 addresses.
Then we tried individually but found out we are now "blacklisted as a known
sender of spam."

The best advice I give to people is to get rid of AOL. I know that won't
work in your case though.

They are using the wrong definition of spam, they do not understand the
difference between solicited and unsolicited.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:hIhFc.14724$wY5.9669@attbi_s54...
> > I understand being upset with spam, but this is kinda like using a
hatchet
> > to kill the mosquito on your arm...
>
> Actually, I just tried sending several AOL users email -- and THEY bounced
> back.
>
> Is AOL having a system-wide problem today? Or are they not accepting
> emails from my ISP (Mediacom)?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

Jay Honeck

July 2nd 04, 07:37 PM

> I am using AOL 9.0 Optimized for Broadband, and I get all your airport
> correspondence, including one only about a half hour ago.

You got it, Lee? Wow, that's weird.

It bounced back to me as if you never got it, saying that it had "delivery
problems"! Did you get the second one I sent, too?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>

John T

July 2nd 04, 07:49 PM

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> The best advice I give to people is to get rid of AOL.

There's a reason it's known as "AOHell". :)

Or is that the insider's view...?

> They are using the wrong definition of spam, they do not understand
> the difference between solicited and unsolicited.

I think they do know the difference. The problem is writing software that
can tell the difference.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

Ditch

July 2nd 04, 07:52 PM

>Nonsense.
>

Not entirely,

>I am using AOL 9.0 Optimized for Broadband

So am I. I didn't even know about the spam blocking crap until a few emails I
was exepcting never came and then I went investigating.

But, it appears to be an easy fix as you can set it up so that everything comes
thru.

-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

Edward Todd

July 2nd 04, 08:08 PM

In article >,
"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote:

> I am president of a local Realtor's group and we had the same problems.
>
> First we got blocked as spam because we sent "bulk mail" to 23 addresses.
> Then we tried individually but found out we are now "blacklisted as a known
> sender of spam."
>
>

Have you tried putting all the email addresses in the "BCC" field where
they are invisible instaed of the To or CC fields. This is the biggest
mistake so many people make when sending out multiple receivers. Never
put a string of email addresses in the To or CC fields, whether for a
mailing list, or just to send to family. Always use BCC. Spammers use
siffer software that can pull these addresses and hey pas through a
server. BCC really helps this.

Edward

Rosspilot

July 2nd 04, 08:08 PM

>
>> I am using AOL 9.0 Optimized for Broadband, and I get all your airport
>> correspondence, including one only about a half hour ago.
>
>You got it, Lee? Wow, that's weird.
>
>It bounced back to me as if you never got it, saying that it had "delivery
>problems"! Did you get the second one I sent, too?
>--

I got one titled "Carl Williams-Airport Commissioner".

That's the only one. And I checked my spam filter and there's nothing in there
from you.

www.Rosspilot.com

Peter Gottlieb

July 2nd 04, 08:17 PM

"Edward Todd" > wrote in message
...
>
> Have you tried putting all the email addresses in the "BCC" field where
> they are invisible instaed of the To or CC fields.

Yes, of course. AOL seemed to pick up several coming in that way over
several mailings.

Jay Honeck

July 2nd 04, 08:23 PM

> set up a REAL mailinglist.
> --> http://www.freelists.org/

Thanks for the tip.

I just checked it out, and I fail to see how this service provides any
advantage over just creating a mailing list using any common email software.

What am I missing?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

July 2nd 04, 08:39 PM

> That's the only one. And I checked my spam filter and there's nothing in
there
> from you.

Lee, that's the SECOND one I sent.

The first one I've tried sending you three times.

Because it has been ONLY AOL users that have bounced back, I can only assume
it's an AOL thing?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Peter Duniho

July 2nd 04, 08:40 PM

"Edward Todd" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Always use BCC. Spammers use
> siffer software that can pull these addresses and hey pas through a
> server. BCC really helps this.

Putting email addresses in the bcc field does nothing to hide the email
addresses, except to the final recipient. All of the email addresses are
easily visible to any of the servers between the sender and the final
recipient, including the final recipient's email server.

To make matters worse, as your advice pertains to this thread, putting email
addresses in the bcc field often sets off spam detection rules.

I do use bcc for large mailings, because it prevents obnoxious reply-alls
when you know a reply-all would never be appropriate. But no one should
believe that using bcc in any way serves to hide the email addresses from
spammers.

Pete

Chris W

July 2nd 04, 08:46 PM

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> I am president of a local Realtor's group and we had the same problems.
>
> First we got blocked as spam because we sent "bulk mail" to 23 addresses.
> Then we tried individually but found out we are now "blacklisted as a known
> sender of spam."

When I worked as a web developer for a local news paper, we had a
mailing list that would send out the results of classified ad searches
to those who subscribed to a search. Well several morons on hotmail
were too stupid to unsubscribe them self so they reported us as spamers
and then all the hotmail address in the DB bounced every day. I told my
boss and he didn't seem to care, so I didn't bother trying to do
anything about it. I really don't know who the bigger idiots were, the
people who couldn't unsubscribe them self or the morons on hotmail that
didn't even take the time to read the supposed spam messages to see the
clearly spelled out and valid method for unsubscribing.

--
Chris W

Bring Back the HP 15C
http://hp15c.org

Not getting the gifts you want? The Wish Zone can help.
http://thewishzone.com

Chris W

July 2nd 04, 08:51 PM

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Putting email addresses in the bcc field does nothing to hide the email
> addresses, except to the final recipient. All of the email addresses are
> easily visible to any of the servers between the sender and the final
> recipient, including the final recipient's email server.

The final recipient is the person *I think* you need to hide the
addresses from. Because if that recipient is using Outlook and they
don't keep their machine secure, a worm can get those addresses and use
it to send a virus and or spam.

--
Chris W

Bring Back the HP 15C
http://hp15c.org

Not getting the gifts you want? The Wish Zone can help.
http://thewishzone.com

Chris W

July 2nd 04, 09:03 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Thanks for the tip.
>
> I just checked it out, and I fail to see how this service provides any
> advantage over just creating a mailing list using any common email software.
>
> What am I missing?

For one thing you don't have to maintain the list of email addresses
anymore. If someone wants to get your news letter they go to a website
or send an email to subscribe and it happens automatically. Then if
they decide they don't want the messages anymore they can either go to
the website or send an message with a command to unsubscribe. Many
people like this more than news groups. The other advantage is it sends
out a separate email to everyone on the list instead of one message with
everyones name in the To: header.

--
Chris W

Bring Back the HP 15C
http://hp15c.org

Not getting the gifts you want? The Wish Zone can help.
http://thewishzone.com

Peter Duniho

July 2nd 04, 09:06 PM

"Chris W" > wrote in message
news:32jFc.26417$WI2.9605@lakeread05...
> The final recipient is the person *I think* you need to hide the
> addresses from.

That is certainly *a* person you need to hide the addresses from, but that
isn't who Edward is talking about. When he writes "siffer [sic] software
that can pull these addresses and [sic] hey [sic] pas [sic] through a
server", he's talking about spammers who set up shop routing email and
watching the email as it goes by. I assume that "and hey pas through"
actually means "as they pass through".

Pete

Rosspilot

July 2nd 04, 09:19 PM

>Because it has been ONLY AOL users that have bounced back, I can only assume
>it's an AOL thing?

Certainly seems like a valid conclusion.

www.Rosspilot.com

Jay Honeck

July 2nd 04, 09:54 PM

> To make matters worse, as your advice pertains to this thread, putting
email
> addresses in the bcc field often sets off spam detection rules.

Precisely.

That's what I was assuming was triggering the bounce-back, until they
bounced back AGAIN when I sent the messages individually.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

July 2nd 04, 10:04 PM

> When I worked as a web developer for a local news paper, we had a
> mailing list that would send out the results of classified ad searches
> to those who subscribed to a search. Well several morons on hotmail
> were too stupid to unsubscribe them self so they reported us as spamers
> and then all the hotmail address in the DB bounced every day. I told my
> boss and he didn't seem to care, so I didn't bother trying to do
> anything about it. I really don't know who the bigger idiots were, the
> people who couldn't unsubscribe them self or the morons on hotmail that
> didn't even take the time to read the supposed spam messages to see the
> clearly spelled out and valid method for unsubscribing.

Well, I hear you, but....

In my experience, the "unsubscribe" button in many emails only validates
your email address -- and triggers even MORE email!

I think that's why people are so hesitant to use it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

G.R. Patterson III

July 3rd 04, 01:51 AM

Rosspilot wrote:
>
> That's the only one. And I checked my spam filter and there's nothing in there
> from you.

If AOL has software blocking mail at the server, it will not be in your filters.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

Rosspilot

July 3rd 04, 02:10 AM

>
>If AOL has software blocking mail at the server, it will not be in your
>filters.

True, George . . . what doesn't make sense, though, is that I got the SECOND
email Jay sent . . . and not the first. If AOL was blocking him as a spammer,
seems to me the first one would get through and the second would be blocked,
right?

www.Rosspilot.com

Tom Sixkiller

July 3rd 04, 03:10 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:%CiFc.15460$Oq2.2861@attbi_s52...

I tried sending you a couple of video's for your web site that never seemed
to get through.

(F-14 fly by with conical vapor spread when hitting Mach 1.0)

G.R. Patterson III

July 3rd 04, 04:08 AM

Rosspilot wrote:
>
> >
> >If AOL has software blocking mail at the server, it will not be in your
> >filters.
>
> True, George . . . what doesn't make sense, though, is that I got the SECOND
> email Jay sent . . . and not the first. If AOL was blocking him as a spammer,
> seems to me the first one would get through and the second would be blocked,
> right?

My assumption based on what happened is that they blocked the original because he
sent it to a mailing list, but at least your server does not have him listed as a
spammer, so the individual mail to you was not blocked.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

Teacherjh

July 3rd 04, 04:47 AM

>>
Well several morons on hotmail
were too stupid to unsubscribe them self
<<

I never "unsubscribe" to suspected spam. I report it and let the chips fall.
Unsubscring is one of the ways spammers know the address is alive.

And I've reported legit stuff too - because a company won't tell me what Email
address they will use to send me stuff, I can't tell whether it's legit or
spoofed from the sender line (and I've gotten plenty of spoofed stuff too).

If you're not a moron, try to improve the system, respecting at the same time
the varied (and complex) ways in which Email is often legitimately used.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Peter Duniho

July 3rd 04, 09:22 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:V5kFc.15773$Oq2.9641@attbi_s52...
> In my experience, the "unsubscribe" button in many emails only validates
> your email address -- and triggers even MORE email!
>
> I think that's why people are so hesitant to use it.

I think his point is that these people are too stupid to understand that
they asked for the email that arrived, and that there would be only a
benefit to them in using the unsubscribe procedure given.

Yes, spam mail also uses a bogus unsubscribe procedure in order to fool
people into validating their email address. But that doesn't mean that
people should ignore a legitimate procedure listed in legitimate email.

Pete

Cub Driver

July 3rd 04, 11:09 AM

I have an email list of about 300. When I realized that many of the
AOL addresses routinely bounced, I separated them and made a list of
eight (eight!) AOL addresses.

That one bounces too, so it doesn't have to be much of a group. Just
to have it processed by Mailman or something similar is enough.

I urge people on my website to ditch AOL. Happily, many are doing just
that as they get broadband, which makes AOL irrelevant.

I never did understand the attraction. It was likely looking at the
internet through the wrong end of a telescope. No other
training-wheels outfit has survived, and I look forward to the day
when AOL joins them in the ditch.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

July 3rd 04, 11:10 AM

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 18:21:01 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Or are they not accepting
>emails from my ISP (Mediacom)?

This is possible too. I once used a mailing service that did not
accept from Comcast, my provider.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

July 3rd 04, 11:15 AM

Alas, it's not nonsense at all. It doesn't happen to everyone
(especially those who use the older software) but it happens to many
or most. It happens to people who specifically include the sender's
address in their list of approved emails.

AOL is pretty thoroughly broken, and it's not needed in any event. I
think you should get rid of it. Why pay twice for itnernet access?

On 02 Jul 2004 18:24:30 GMT, (Rosspilot)
wrote:

>>
>>It seems AOL has initiated some sort of an anti-Spam blocker that no longer
>>accepts group emails.
>
>
>Nonsense.
>
>I am using AOL 9.0 Optimized for Broadband, and I get all your airport
>correspondence, including one only about a half hour ago.
>
>www.Rosspilot.com
>

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

July 3rd 04, 11:17 AM

On 02 Jul 2004 19:08:22 GMT, (Rosspilot)
wrote:

>That's the only one. And I checked my spam filter and there's nothing in there
>from you.

But there wouldn't be. The emails bounce, pure and simple. They never
get to your spam filter.

Almost always the reason is "no such user", even when there is such a
user. Sometimes it's "xxx is not accepting messages from you", even
when he has added you as an approved sender.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

Cub Driver

July 3rd 04, 11:20 AM

I have a "real" mailing list. Many or most AOL addresses bounce.

The virtue of a mailing list is that there is no limit on how many
addresses you can send to. With my email software, and with my
provider, outgoing messages are refused if there are more than 25? 30?
something like that recipients.

You can also set up the list so that additions and deletions are
handled by the list, which some people prefer (I might not want to
tell you I no longer want to get your newsletter). Personally, I do it
manually, because I get subscribers from a couple of different routes.

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:23:39 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> set up a REAL mailinglist.
>> --> http://www.freelists.org/
>
>Thanks for the tip.
>
>I just checked it out, and I fail to see how this service provides any
>advantage over just creating a mailing list using any common email software.
>
>What am I missing?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

Martin Hotze

July 3rd 04, 11:29 AM

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:39:26 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>The first one I've tried sending you three times.

So it is wasting ressources and bouncing around the net *3* times.
what for? if you send it once and it fails, chances are that it also failes
on the second and 3rd try.

#m

--
Michael Moore: Fahrenheit 9/11:
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/

Martin Hotze

July 3rd 04, 11:35 AM

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:23:39 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> set up a REAL mailinglist.
>> --> http://www.freelists.org/
>
>Thanks for the tip.
>
>I just checked it out, and I fail to see how this service provides any
>advantage over just creating a mailing list using any common email software.
>
>What am I missing?

as Chris W already pointed out.

Mailinglists are the preferred method of distributing mails to many
recipients. it has built in features like confirmed (!!) opt-in, password
reminders, web-archives, digest setting, moderation, vacation, me-too,
ACKs, filters, etc. etc.

you might also set up different lists like:
IOW-announce
IOW-discuss

unsubscribing from a list is easy.
unsubscribing from a list maintained in your mailclient is not, you always
rely on the maintainer.

hth, #m

--
Michael Moore: Fahrenheit 9/11:
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/

Teacherjh

July 3rd 04, 03:19 PM

>>
I think his point is that these people are too stupid to understand that
they asked for the email that arrived, and that there would be only a
benefit to them in using the unsubscribe procedure given.
<<

I sign up at (say) BestBuy to get their monthly specials via Email. Three
weeks later (and about a hundred or two spams later) I get an Email from
announcing special sales (and having links with
redirect parts) at BestBuy and having an unsubscribe link that goes to
.

Is it really from Best Buy?

Probably not. But maybe. Retailers are not very bright either.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Martin Hotze

July 3rd 04, 03:42 PM

On 03 Jul 2004 14:19:56 GMT, Teacherjh wrote:

>I sign up at (say) BestBuy to get their monthly specials via Email. Three
>weeks later (and about a hundred or two spams later) I get an Email from
announcing special sales (and having links with
>redirect parts) at BestBuy and having an unsubscribe link that goes to
.
>
>Is it really from Best Buy?

check the source (sic!) from the mail. Even better: don't display mails in
HTML and chose plain-text over HTML whenver possible.

what you are talking about is "phishing"

>Probably not. But maybe. Retailers are not very bright either.

most of the users are too stupid to go online. you can see the result in
your inbox/spamfilter/etc.

#m
--
Michael Moore: Fahrenheit 9/11:
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/

Peter Duniho

July 3rd 04, 05:28 PM

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> I sign up at (say) BestBuy to get their monthly specials via Email. Three
> weeks later (and about a hundred or two spams later) I get an Email from
> announcing special sales (and having links with
> redirect parts) at BestBuy and having an unsubscribe link that goes to
> .
>
> Is it really from Best Buy?
>
> Probably not. But maybe. Retailers are not very bright either.

Unfortunately, that email might *have* been from BestBuy. I received a
similar sort of advertising from my bank, filled with URLs that linked back
to some third-party site. None linked to my bank.

I contacted my bank to ask them if the email was legitimate, and IT WAS,
amazingly enough. They had hired some company to handle their advertising,
and all of the web traffic goes through that company's domain, rather than
through my bank's domain.

I explained to them why email representing them needed to have links to
THEIR web site, not someone else's. I'm not sure if they got the concept
though. I had myself removed from their advertising mailing list, so I
haven't gotten any email from them again.

Pete

Jay Honeck

July 3rd 04, 07:30 PM

> So it is wasting ressources and bouncing around the net *3* times.
> what for? if you send it once and it fails, chances are that it also
failes
> on the second and 3rd try.

Because computers, unlike almost anything else in the known universe, can
(and often will) give you a different result from the same input.

As is witnessed by the fact that Lee DID receive one of the emails sent.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Chris W

July 3rd 04, 08:33 PM

Teacherjh wrote:
> Well several morons on hotmail
> were too stupid to unsubscribe them self
> <<
>
> I never "unsubscribe" to suspected spam. I report it and let the chips fall.
> Unsubscring is one of the ways spammers know the address is alive.

If you subscribed to a mailing, then get that mailing and think it is
spam, I would have to call that stupid.

> And I've reported legit stuff too - because a company won't tell me what Email
> address they will use to send me stuff, I can't tell whether it's legit or
> spoofed from the sender line (and I've gotten plenty of spoofed stuff too).

Any good email list software for a legitimate email list will always
have your and only your address in the To: header of the message so it
is easy to see what address they are using to send stuff to you.

--
Chris W

Bring Back the HP 15C
http://hp15c.org

Not getting the gifts you want? The Wish Zone can help.
http://thewishzone.com

Jay Honeck

July 3rd 04, 10:23 PM

Jay Honeck

July 3rd 04, 10:23 PM

Bob Noel

July 4th 04, 12:38 AM

In article <2XCFc.19401$XM6.17860@attbi_s53>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> > So it is wasting ressources and bouncing around the net *3* times.
> > what for? if you send it once and it fails, chances are that it also
> failes
> > on the second and 3rd try.
>
> Because computers, unlike almost anything else in the known universe, can
> (and often will) give you a different result from the same input.

If there was a different result, it wasn't the same input. :-)

--
Bob Noel

Peter Gottlieb

July 4th 04, 02:44 AM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> > Because computers, unlike almost anything else in the known universe,
can
> > (and often will) give you a different result from the same input.
>
> If there was a different result, it wasn't the same input. :-)
>

It seems you still trust computers.

The problem is that it is impossible to know whether the computer has the
same input or not...

Bob Noel

July 4th 04, 03:12 AM

In article >, "Peter
Gottlieb" > wrote:

> > If there was a different result, it wasn't the same input. :-)
>
> It seems you still trust computers.

After my work with avionics software I most certainly do not trust
computers.

> The problem is that it is impossible to know whether the computer has the
> same input or not...

It's not impossible. It is usually impractical, but it isn't
impossible.

--
Bob Noel

Teacherjh

July 4th 04, 04:31 AM

>>
If you subscribed to a mailing, then get that mailing and think it is
spam, I would have to call that stupid.
<<

That's very insulting, and shows you've never done this. Well, maybe not
never, but certainly not enough times to see how often the mailing that comes
does not at all resemble what would be expected.

>>
Any good email list software for a legitimate email list will always
have your and only your address in the To: header of the message so it
is easy to see what address they are using to send stuff to you.
<<

Any good spammer knows this.

>> what you are talking about is "phishing"

I know what I'm talking about.

>> check the source (sic!) from the mail.

Ok. The source is , and the clerks at BestBuy do not
know where the legit Emails will be coming from.

>>
They had hired some company to handle their advertising,
and all of the web traffic goes through that company's domain, rather than
through my bank's domain.
<<

Bingo. All too common.

>>
> Because computers, unlike almost anything else in the known universe, can
> (and often will) give you a different result from the same input.

If there was a different result, it wasn't the same input. :-)
<<

False.

Check to see how your computer boots up. I bet that the icons come up in a
different order each time. Mine do. To be more techical, the "input" that has
to be the "same" is beyond the control of the user and of the program. Often
it's a timing issue - with multple threads and a hard drive whose last position
is unknown, and whose startup charactaristics are not identical to the
precision required, things get out of sync. And if one piece of data happens
to be closer (today) than it was (yesterday) to some other related piece of
data (due to fragmentation issues), timing goes all to hell. And comptuers
rely on timing far more than you would think.

But that's another issue.

>>
It's not impossible[ to know whether the computer has the
same input or not]. It is usually impractical, but it isn't
impossible.
<<

It's actually impossible. QM says so.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Martin Hotze

July 4th 04, 12:28 PM

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 01:44:02 GMT, Peter Gottlieb wrote:

>> If there was a different result, it wasn't the same input. :-)
>>
>
>It seems you still trust computers.
>
>The problem is that it is impossible to know whether the computer has the
>same input or not...

naaahhhh. Most of the time: PEBKC.

#m

--
Michael Moore: Fahrenheit 9/11:
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/

Martin Hotze

July 4th 04, 12:31 PM

On 04 Jul 2004 03:31:40 GMT, Teacherjh wrote:

>>>

Please: don't combine several postings into one, especially when mixing
quotings, without reference line and broken quoting levels.

Thank you,

Martin

f-up2poster set
--
Michael Moore: Fahrenheit 9/11:
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/

Dima Volodin

July 4th 04, 01:44 PM

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> "Edward Todd" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...] Always use BCC. Spammers use
> > siffer software that can pull these addresses and hey pas through a
> > server. BCC really helps this.
>
> Putting email addresses in the bcc field does nothing to hide the email
> addresses, except to the final recipient. All of the email addresses are
> easily visible to any of the servers between the sender and the final
> recipient, including the final recipient's email server.
>
> To make matters worse, as your advice pertains to this thread, putting email
> addresses in the bcc field often sets off spam detection rules.
>
> I do use bcc for large mailings, because it prevents obnoxious reply-alls
> when you know a reply-all would never be appropriate. But no one should
> believe that using bcc in any way serves to hide the email addresses from
> spammers.

In fact, it does. The addresses in the BCC field (in fact, there's no
such thing, and it's only your mailing program like Outlook that knows
anything about this field; the addresses go to what's known as "the
envelope") are usually visible to 1) your provider's server and 2) your
addressees' providers' servers. Chances are really good that none of
these servers is involved in address fishing for spammers.

Anyway, back to AOL - Jay, the only meaningful way to deal with it is to
try to get AOL users on your list to call their customer support and
complain REALLY LOUD.

> Pete

Dima

Jay Honeck

July 4th 04, 01:50 PM

> Anyway, back to AOL - Jay, the only meaningful way to deal with it is to
> try to get AOL users on your list to call their customer support and
> complain REALLY LOUD.

Well, Lee is the only rec.aviation/AOL user on the list -- so here goes:
Lee, complain to AOL about this, will ya?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Rosspilot

July 4th 04, 02:43 PM

>he only meaningful way to deal with it is to
>> try to get AOL users on your list to call their customer support and
>> complain REALLY LOUD.
>
>Well, Lee is the only rec.aviation/AOL user on the list -- so here goes:
>Lee, complain to AOL about this, will ya?

Not feasible. Here's a better solution, Jay . . . switch my address on your
list to

.

www.Rosspilot.com

Jay Honeck

July 4th 04, 04:42 PM

> Not feasible. Here's a better solution, Jay . . . switch my address on
your
> list to
>
> .

Done!

(And, BTW: It's ALWAYS feasible to complain about lousy service... ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >he only meaningful way to deal with it is to
> >> try to get AOL users on your list to call their customer support and
> >> complain REALLY LOUD.
> >
> >Well, Lee is the only rec.aviation/AOL user on the list -- so here goes:
> >Lee, complain to AOL about this, will ya?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>

Peter Gottlieb

July 4th 04, 05:01 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:XzVFc.23297$XM6.1268@attbi_s53...
>
> (And, BTW: It's ALWAYS feasible to complain about lousy service... ;-)
> --

Where AOL is concerned it is more efficient for one to go directly to
banging one's head against the wall.

Rosspilot

July 4th 04, 05:04 PM

>>
>> (And, BTW: It's ALWAYS feasible to complain about lousy service... ;-)
>> --
>
>
>Where AOL is concerned it is more efficient for one to go directly to
>banging one's head against the wall.

Basically, that's what I meant . . . AOL is so huge that a complaint has little
or no effect--other than venting, perhaps.

I take the line of least resistance when possible.

www.Rosspilot.com

Jay Honeck

July 4th 04, 11:45 PM

> Basically, that's what I meant . . . AOL is so huge that a complaint has
little
> or no effect--other than venting, perhaps.
>
> I take the line of least resistance when possible.

Ah, good point. Some things are just not worth getting worked up about.

I've recently spent many, many unproductive hours working with Qwest,
getting DSL installed at the hotel. It has been a thoroughly frustrating
affair, involving several Qwest technicians (none of whom seem to agree with
each other), several departments within Qwest, and a series of unforeseen
problems with integrating DSL into our telephone console switchboard.

All this just so I could tell Mediacom (the cable modem people) to take a
hike! Life is too short...

So, now we've got BOTH DSL *and* cable modems running on wireless networks
throughout the hotel. MAYBE this set-up will provide the stability that our
guests deserve -- but I doubt it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Peter Duniho

July 5th 04, 08:19 AM

"Dima Volodin" > wrote in message
...
> In fact, it does.

In fact, it does not.

> The addresses in the BCC field (in fact, there's no
> such thing, and it's only your mailing program like Outlook that knows
> anything about this field; the addresses go to what's known as "the
> envelope") are usually visible to 1) your provider's server and 2) your
> addressees' providers' servers.

Unless your provider's server connects directly to your addressee's servers,
they are NOT the only servers to whom the bcc field is visible. It's
visible to ANY server that the data is passed along.

You can use tracert to get a pretty good idea of how many servers also get
to look at the data. It's almost never just your server and the recipient's
server. Nearly all of the time, a spammer's server is not in the middle.
But there's no way to guarantee that one's not, and it DOES happen that one
is now and then.

Again, I assume that's what Edward was referring to in his post.

Pete

Peter Duniho

July 5th 04, 09:19 AM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> > You can use tracert to get a pretty good idea of how many servers also
get
> > to look at the data.
>
> really? *woaahh*

Not sure what your point is. Your own test shows 20 hops from your server
to mine. Of course there are duplicate server owners, but any server in the
chain sees the data being passed along.

You're just proving my point. Internet communications are almost never
point-to-point. It's naive to assume that spammers don't own their own
servers that could be used to transfer email from one end point to another.

Pete

Cub Driver

July 5th 04, 10:49 AM

>(And, BTW: It's ALWAYS feasible to complain about lousy service... ;-)

Feasible, perhaps, but often pointless. The best way to deal with AOL
is to switch to a real ISP.

AOL users are loath to do this because they evidently can't access
their addressbooks in order to transfer them to a real email software.
A couple of my friends have sent out these pathetic emails from their
AOL addresses, asking me to respond to their new addresses, so they
can add me back. I could never see a reason why I should manually
create an address just so that the guy on the other end wouldn't have
to do so.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

Rosspilot

July 5th 04, 03:04 PM

>The best way to deal with AOL
>is to switch to a real ISP.
>
Dan,
Your hatred of AOL is evident and on the record. But I dispute your
charactarization that somehow it isn't a REAL ISP, and your provincial attitude
about it is most annoying, because implicit in your commentary is a put-down of
AOL users as somehow less sophisticated or knowledgeable. I resent that.

AOL is not my only portal to the Internet. I have Optimum Online, and
Netscape, Opera, and of course Explorer.

I have built a business identity and invested 9 years in the continuous (and
trademarked) screenname usage. I do not wish to give it up, and doing so
is completely unnecessary, and presents a host of problems with thousands of
correspondents, clients, customers, family, etc.

I lose NOTHING by virtue of maintaining an AOL account (except $14.95/month).

www.Rosspilot.com

Peter Duniho

July 5th 04, 06:12 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> yeah ... my routers sure have nothing better to do than filtering out
email
> addresses

Are you telling me you're a spammer? If not, then what's the relevance of
your statement? Of course YOUR routers have nothing better to do.

> spammers mostly use the infrastructure from others (trojan horses etc.)

So? Not all do.

Pete

Peter Duniho

July 5th 04, 06:55 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> > Are you telling me you're a spammer? If not, then what's the relevance
of
> > your statement? Of course YOUR routers have nothing better to do.
>
>
> sic!

Change "nothing" to "something". You ought to be able to get the point,
regardless.

Jay Honeck

July 5th 04, 08:51 PM

> so now you have set up a wireless network throughout the hotel?

Yep. We've had it since 2002.

> what does one
> need to use it?

Knowledge. Occasionally my help.

> Do you provide the wireless cards?

Upon request.

> what standard? 802.11b?

802.11g

>Do you charge for it?

Nope.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[email protected]

July 5th 04, 09:59 PM

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 00:19:01 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>You can use tracert to get a pretty good idea of how many servers also get
>to look at the data. It's almost never just your server and the recipient's
>server. Nearly all of the time, a spammer's server is not in the middle.
>But there's no way to guarantee that one's not, and it DOES happen that one
>is now and then.

Perhaps the term router and server have been misapplied here?

Traceroute shows you how many devices are routing your data packet
between your PC and some destination. Some of those are firewalls,
some of those are routers, some of those are combination
firewall/routers. Unless specially configured, they do not look
beyond the IP datagram header (IP it came from, IP it's going to)
fields, and act in function like an envelope going through the mail.
Even though your letter goes through a bunch of post office facilities
and trucks, some of which might do some cursory examination to see if
there's anything hazardous inside the envelope, they don't look at the
contents of the envelope. Is the contention that spammers are
gathering email addresses through the routine opening of email
*content* that is somehow being re-routed through a link they own in
the path between you and the person you're communicating with? Or are
we taking about them somehow hijacking MX records to open, read, and
then forward along routine email going from place to place?

When sending an email you (assuming Windows and a POP derivative like
Outlook or Eudora, not Unix with sendmail and PINE etc) open a
connection from your PC to your outbound mail server. That server
looks at the email destination address(es) and then creates an
envelope, addressed to the destination party's mail server (post
office). Your outbound server then opens a connection directly to
that destination's server. The path your envelope takes between your
server and that server depends on who your ISP buys connections to and
whatever routing rules they have applied for outbound traffic. The
envelope is not normally opened between those two points by any "hop"
shown by traceroute. By the time you get up to things like qwest.net,
level3.net, bbnplanet.net, etc you're talking OC192 fiber-optic
connections (about 10gb/s if memory serves) and to attempt packet
sniffing on that kind of connection (which carries *all* traffic, not
just email - newsgroups, web, games, etc) just to find out someone's
to: or bcc: list would be so CPU intensive that you wouldn't be able
to effectively use the bandwidth you're paying rediculous amounts of
money to the phone company for.

Peter Duniho

July 6th 04, 12:31 AM

" <Peter Clark> wrote in message
...
> Perhaps the term router and server have been misapplied here?

This not being a technical newsgroup (and I guess, this thread really
doesn't belong, so I'll stop after this), I am using the term "server"
simply to describe a physical node within the Internet that helps pass along
traffic. "Router" would be a more specific term, of course. I consider a
"router" a type of "server".

> [...] Is the contention that spammers are
> gathering email addresses through the routine opening of email
> *content* that is somehow being re-routed through a link they own in
> the path between you and the person you're communicating with? Or are
> we taking about them somehow hijacking MX records to open, read, and
> then forward along routine email going from place to place?

The former. And I never said it was commonplace. My original reply was
simply to refute the claim that using the bcc field in any way hides email
addresses from any interested party that would otherwise be able to see the
rest of the email message.

As far as it not being feasible to inspect Internet traffic as it passes
through your routers, that's just silly. It would require only a completely
insignificant amount of extra overhead to detect traffic containing email,
and then to extract email addresses from that traffic. In any case, if
you're a spammer who has somehow arranged to be involved in routing Internet
traffic, why would you care if there was a little extra overhead? That
would be the whole reason for putting yourself in that position in the first
place.

Do not underestimate the motivation of spammers to find new, valid email
addresses, or the motivation of people who sell email addresses to spammers
to do the same.

I think it's pretty funny that the big debate here has been the question of
whether it's possible to pull email addresses from email as it's routed
across the Internet (which, IMHO, is obviously possible...ANY traffic can be
monitored by a party with enough interest and motivation), while NO ONE ELSE
has bothered to comment on whether using the bcc field actually hides email
addresses from those who would pull email addresses from email as it's
routed across the Internet.

Classic.

Pete

VideoGuy

July 6th 04, 07:26 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:XzVFc.23297$XM6.1268@attbi_s53...
!
>
> (And, BTW: It's ALWAYS feasible to complain about lousy service... ;-)
> --
As a former AOL user, I think complaining to them is about as effective as
complaining to eBay, or your elected representative, or the IRS.

None of them give a cr@p about what you think, especially the last two. And
as far as eBay goes, they are so well insulated you can't even find a phone
number to talk to a "live" person.

To AOL's credit- when I had a complaint, I was able to talk to someone, and
they listened. Weren't interested in doing anything though. BTW this was
also a SPAM related matter. Encouraging EVERYONE to stop using AOL is the
only solution. Unfortunately, I know a LOT of AOL users who are so computer
illiterate that they won't change 'cause they believe the whole darn
Internet starts and stops w/ AOL.

Gary 'need an AOL install CD?' Kasten

G.R. Patterson III

July 6th 04, 05:05 PM

VideoGuy wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, I know a LOT of AOL users who are so computer
> illiterate that they won't change 'cause they believe the whole darn
> Internet starts and stops w/ AOL.

Yep. My mother is one of those. What makes it even worse is that she got into
computers professionally back in the paper tape days, so she thinks she knows
everything about them. If you need a FORTRAN program for an IBM 1401, she'd be the
one to talk to, but as a PC user, she's not so hot.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

Rosspilot

July 6th 04, 05:39 PM

>> Unfortunately, I know a LOT of AOL users who are so computer
>> illiterate that they won't change 'cause they believe the whole darn
>> Internet starts and stops w/ AOL.
>
>Yep. My mother is one of those

This certainly doesn't mean it is a charactaristic of all (or even the
majority) of AOL users.

And it isn't the fault of AOL, either.

www.Rosspilot.com

G.R. Patterson III

July 6th 04, 06:08 PM

Rosspilot wrote:
>
> This certainly doesn't mean it is a charactaristic of all (or even the
> majority) of AOL users.
>
> And it isn't the fault of AOL, either.

No, but what makes it a problem for me is that she switched over to sending her mail
in HTML format ('cause she likes the fonts). When my browser receives HTML, it
translates it into text, and everything's fine. Except for HTML messages from AOL. I
don't know what AOL does to their HTML, but I cannot reply to one and edit the reply.
The original text received is added as an appendage to my reply.

Back when she used text for mail, all the apostrophes and quotation marks came across
as garbage. That went on for years.

The frustrating thing for me is the fact that she used to be a logical person - you
can't build a reputation as a good programmer if you don't have an excellent logical
thought process. But she has an almost religious devotion to AOL and can't believe
that the problems we see are unique to AOL.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

Teacherjh

July 6th 04, 06:53 PM

>>
No, but what makes it a problem for me is that she switched over to sending her
mail
in HTML format ('cause she likes the fonts). When my browser receives HTML, it
translates it into text, and everything's fine. Except for HTML messages from
AOL. I
don't know what AOL does to their HTML, but I cannot reply to one and edit the
reply.
The original text received is added as an appendage to my reply.
<<

This is a function of your Email software, not of AOL. It is your software
that appends (or does not append) the orignial text message. There are
standards for handling various levels of HTML (including whether or not a text
version is included - this is the "multpart - MIME" issue), but your Email
software has full control of how it decides to handle replies.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

G.R. Patterson III

July 6th 04, 08:10 PM

Teacherjh wrote:
>
> This is a function of your Email software, not of AOL. It is your software
> that appends (or does not append) the orignial text message. There are
> standards for handling various levels of HTML (including whether or not a text
> version is included - this is the "multpart - MIME" issue), but your Email
> software has full control of how it decides to handle replies.

Not in the case of messages sent from AOL. I receive messages from other people in
HTML format, and my mail package (Netscape) handles it just fine, but if I get one
from an AOL user, it won't.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

Peter Clark

July 7th 04, 03:32 AM

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 16:31:33 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

I'll pop off after this one too unless someone else is really
interested in the discourse.

>As far as it not being feasible to inspect Internet traffic as it passes
>through your routers, that's just silly. It would require only a completely
>insignificant amount of extra overhead to detect traffic containing email,
>and then to extract email addresses from that traffic. In any case, if
>you're a spammer who has somehow arranged to be involved in routing Internet
>traffic, why would you care if there was a little extra overhead? That
>would be the whole reason for putting yourself in that position in the first
>place.

You don't happen to have some Cisco IOS packetfilter code which would
do this handy do you? I can't seem to craft a filter which examines
and logs packet payload.

>Do not underestimate the motivation of spammers to find new, valid email
>addresses, or the motivation of people who sell email addresses to spammers
>to do the same.

I don't underestimate the motivation. I believe that most of the viri
and other addressbook copying and attacking exploits are done for the
purposes of gathering addresses, as well as phising/fishing, looking
at usenet, forum boards, etc etc etc. I also believe that purchasing
highly expensive OC192+ links and becoming a/convincing the existing
tier 1 and 2 providers that you are now another tier 1 or 2 ISP which
they should pass their traffic through, just for the purpose of
examining the relatively small subset of that payload which is an
email containing addresses (which are likely more invalid than valid
because they're forged addresses sourced from other spammers) is a
long, hard, and expensive way to go about getting addresses with
other, easier alternatives available to them.

>I think it's pretty funny that the big debate here has been the question of
>whether it's possible to pull email addresses from email as it's routed
>across the Internet (which, IMHO, is obviously possible...ANY traffic can be
>monitored by a party with enough interest and motivation), while NO ONE ELSE
>has bothered to comment on whether using the bcc field actually hides email
>addresses from those who would pull email addresses from email as it's
>routed across the Internet.

If they can't snif the payload it doesn't matter whether the address
is in the to: or bcc: fields. If they can snif the payload, they're
likely using a grep-like thing parsing for /net/org/etc and it
doesn't matter if you're using to: or bcc:. If you can provide me
with a filter I can put in my v12 Cisco IOS router which will read
email payload as it goes through the box, without making it's CPU go
to 100% and crashing my core , I'll concede that a router can be used
to pull addresses from email in transit through backbone links, but I
tend to doubt they would have the financial resources to set up a
major backbone ISP with high-capacity transit links, just to front an
email-address gathering operation.