Posted on 04/23/2004 6:09:07 PM PDT by Stoat
This information comes from the LangaList, a GREAT, FREE computer and technology newsletter published by Fred Langa, formerly the Editor of Byte Magazine. This AOL scanning / blocking issue has been covered in two segments so far; here is the first one:
AOL Madness (Warn Your Friends) AOL is at it again. This time, it's reading *inside* its members' emails, and preemptively blocking any messages that contain links to sites that AOL doesn't want you to see.
Note: I'm *not* talking about simple mail blocks, where a mail is discarded if it originates from a "forbidden" address. No: AOL is parsing the content of its members' emails and blocking them even if they merely *mention* a site that AOL disapproves of.
This happened to my last newsletter issue, when I mentioned a perfectly valid and inoffensive link: http://www.codeproject.com/ . It turns out that last summer, in July, AOL put that site on its naughty list for some unexplained reason, and ever since has blocked all emails that even contain a link to that address.
When my list-host ( http://dundee.net ) noticed huge numbers of AOL emails bouncing back, they preemptively sought to find out why, and the folks at AOL then removed the block--- on that one address.
AOL's mail system is just this side of insane. Not only does it read inside member emails for links that AOL doesn't like, but--- as we've reported before--- if AOL members get a little lazy and block a newsletter like this one, instead of unsubscribing, AOL keeps track of the blocks. Last time I looked, if as few as 10 readers took the lazy way out of stopping a mailing, AOL would assume that the mail in question was spam. In my case, if just 10 AOL users out of 160,000 readers--- that's 0.00006 of my readers--- took the lazy way off the list, all AOL subscribers would have their legitimate issues blocked for some time thereafter.
AOL's user-level mail filters are nearly useless because the master filters discard emails before they ever make it to the users' mailboxes and the local filters there. That means AOL members can white-list senders to their heart's content but it will have no effect at all on the pre-filtering that's done by AOL before their mail ever gets delivered. AOL's user-level mail controls are a little like those fake thermostats you sometimes see in office buildings that are meant to give occupants the illusion of local control, when in reality, a central system is making all the real decisions.
Noted tech writer Brian Livingston also has been struggling with this, as he reported in http://briansbuzz.com/w/040408/ . Just look at the jaw-dropping failure rates he found:
I've written many times that Internet service providers (ISPs) are mishandling the growing menace of spam by imposing crude "junk-mail filters" that delete legitimate messages without notifying the intended recipients of that fact.
...AOL "bounced" about 88% of the newsletters that had been sent to subscribers who use aol.com e-mail addresses. The problem was also severe at subsidiaries owned by AOL, including cs.com (which bounced 88%) and netscape.net (96%).
...[AOL's] filter simply deletes huge quantities of mail without ever delivering it... (click link above for full article)
If you have friends on AOL, you may wish to tell them about this ( http://www.langa.com/sendit.htm ) so they'll know why their email is so unreliable. Of course, there's no guarantee they'll see your email, just as there's no guarantee that legitimate subscribers to this newsletter on AOL will get this issue....
But there's a glimmer of hope: For the first time ever, AOL's membership has started to shrink significantly. Users are finally realizing they can get better service at lower costs from other ISPs. Perhaps if enough members vote with their dollars, AOL will wake up and meaningfully change its Big Brother-ish ways.
Here is the second segment of the AOL scanning /blocking story:
Just For Grins Some unintentional humor fell out of the serious discussion of AOL's antispam policies, which we discussed last issue: AOL blocks emails that merely contain a link to sites AOL doesn't approve of. ( http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2004/2004-04-19.htm#2 ) Many AOL subscribers were incensed and asked AOL tech support for an explanation. Reader "Ray" for example, got this immediate reply from AOL:
...I assure you that AOL is not blocking emails of any sort from arriving on your mailbox.... Ray sent that to me, not knowing whom to believe.
But at almost the same moment Ray's mail arrived, I also got this:
Dear Fred, I just thought that I would let you know that I forwarded your [send to a friend] letter to all my friends on aol. Guess what, aol bounced everyone of them. This is the reason they gave: "(reason: 554-: (HVU:B1) The URL contained in your email to AOL members has generated a high volume of complaints... AOL will no longer accept email with the URL contained in your message. 554 TRANSACTION FAILED" ---Kris
Then I got a note from Fred and Anne Weaver:
After reading your recent newsletter on AOL I tried to send it to an AOL friend. Your URL caused it to be rejected by AOL! Why anyone uses AOL is beyond me. ---Fred and Anne
Then a note from Diane H Kuhn:
I tried to email the latest newsletter to 2 of my family members with AOL address. Both were returned to me within minutes of sending...the reason? It contained a link to a Malicious site....hmmmmm. I guess I better print it and mail it!! Thanks, Diane
It went on all day--- notes from AOL members telling me that AOL techs swore that AOL would *never* block email... followed by mail from readers outside of AOL who tried send to AOL members, and got their mail blocked.
The amusing thing, aside from AOL's blatant duplicity in telling its customers one thing while simultaneously doing the opposite (ok, I have a dark sense of humor), is that the only link in the "send to a friend" letter was a link to the current LangaList issue on Langa.Com--- there was no ad link, no spam link, no tracking link, nothing but a link to a newsletter that criticized AOL. But that was enough for AOL to install a block on Langa.Com email. (Or, as AOL might say: "Block? What block? We'd never do that...!" )
Stop Using That stupid Company. Let them outsource to Kenya, for all I care. STAY AWAY FROM AOL!
Ah yes, AOHELL! I totally agree. They wrote so many things onto my computer every time I logged on that I had to buy a new one. I could NEVER get through to "tech support" or "customer service" so I sent them an e-mail and told them to cancel. I must have received 4 letters and 2 calls that week from Customer Service asking me to come back. Their "customer service" and "tech support" are in name only.
I have never subscribed to AOL and never will. Even back when the Internet was in its infancy I still went with a local provider.
AOL is irrelevant. There are literally dozens of ISPs available for consumers to choose from, some of them offering basic dial-up for under $10.
Exactly. It's the Internet for sheeple.
Dude - KILL that account NOW. All they're going to do is keep offering you "free" services that snarl you into a long-term contract that's going to cost you more money down the road.
I had AOL a couple of years ago and they pulled the same crap with me. Those clymers wouldn't take no for an answer until I contacted the state Consumer Protection and Better Business Bureau on their asses.
Seems a bit drastic. I would have just reformatted the hard drive.
Right and right. Once Quantum computers went out, QuantumLink (now AOL) shifted its focus to a new target: Windoze users who had heard of the Internet and figured it was "cool," but were afraid of it.
A rather admirably successful, if a bit devious, business tactic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.