Spam Blockers and AOL's new plans...I found this article rather interesting. I will agree that it seems some spamblockers are a little too agressive (yet they still tend to let too much spam through). But most services have a "junk" folder that allows you to check out the email they've marked as spam. I advise always going through the folder for at least a week whenever you set up a new account of any kind, that utilizes such a service (like gmail, hotmail, or mozilla's thunderbird email program), as it will inevitably peg some of your legit email as spam.
AOL's new plan, however, is to begin *charging* legitimate mass emailers a fee to allow the emails to pass. This has it's pros and cons. I'd like to address a few:
PRO:
- Virus wielding, illegitimate spammers will not pay for such services. In fact, one of the reasons why the computers have viruses is because they are built *solely* to spam. A simple mass emailer, a long list of emails, and the spam is installed, the comp is given an internet connection, and left alone for weeks (or more), so when they do get hacked, or a virus, the owner doesn't give a rat's behind.
- Foreign email spammers, even if they are legit, likely won't pay for such services. I don't know about you, but I recieve a TON of Korean spam (and occassionally chinese spam). Mostly for online stores. They seem legit, but obviously there's no way I'm buying from them.
CON:
- Mass emailers that commonly get pegged for spam but aren't (like yahoogroups, and other legit mailing lists), are going to have an even harder time getting through. Why? Because these lists are usually free. Why would they continue to be free if AOL is going to charge them?
- AOL is controlling what they define as "Spam". Not you. Like the aforementioned emails that often get pegged for spam but aren't, that you normally have to white list, or mark as "not spam", now AOL is planning to play Border Patrol and stop them before you even get the chance to mark them 'legit'.
Obviously those are very brief lists, but I'd like to mention some of the repercussions as well:
Many mailing lists are going to specifically NOT allow you to sign up with AOL email addresses. Considering how the majority of online identities out there are AOL, this is going to alienate a lot of people (at least, the less computer litterate ones who don't know/trust well enough to sign up for an alternative free email account). Eventually however, this may severely hurt these services, when they realize just how big a populace the AOL community is, thus either making them decide to allow AOL emails, but start charging for the currently free services, or decide it's not worth it to continue the service altogether.
The other big repercussion is the control of content. I'm all for more agressive spam control, but the problem (and this is the big problem with product activation, like Adobe and Microsoft), is that these systems, the obviously "easier to implement" solutions, tend to victimize the *legitimate* parties, rather than make the spammers/pirates pay for their misdeeds. Since AOL has to approve what is or isn't spam ANYWAY for this program, why not identify the legitimate entities, allow them through, for free, and identify the real spammers and *locate them*, and make *them* pay, the situation would be not only more tolerable, but praiseworthy.
The FBI goes after hackers, and software pirates with applomb, but obviously doesn't go after the spammers with nearly the same tenacity (for several reasons, one they can't really recoup much monetary cost, so there's no financial reason for the FBI, or AOL to go after them too hard, plus legally, there's still a fine line between solicited and unsolicited. How many emails have you gotten that said "you're receiving this because you signed up with..." even though you haven't, but the fact that they have your address they can say you did if ever taken to court over it. OR, the ones that quote some government statute/docket number as the reason why the email isn't spam (for the record, it's a lie, the statute commonly sited was shot down in congress years ago, and there hasn't been any such proposal since).
Basically, spammers are not financially viable targets to go after (for the big companies/FBI), and victimizing legitimate mass emailers is not the way to go. Although, if AOL was dedicating any fees they got from legit emailers towards locating and stopping spammers, I (and many others) wouldn't have such a problem with this issue.
Let me know your thoughts, feedback, peanut butter cookie recipes, etc. ;Þ
