dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | "Legit Spammer"?
Uhm... WTF is a "Legit Spammer"?
Panda? |
|
Sr Tech
Premium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT | Today It's all about the money!! |
|
Ammler
Premium
join:2005-04-19
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to dadkins
This is why I shy away from any website that I have to "register" to use. Once they get your address, they abuse it.
And if I still "have" to use it, they get either my Yahoo or Gmail address so all the junk that I don't look at goes there. |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to dadkins
They call it "opt in", but apparently this refers to the email provider, not their users, choosing to join. The approved senders comply with some rules (they're identified, and no phishing); in exchange they get through the spam filters; and the users see a special symbol that's supposed to promote trust of the sender.
There was mention also that images and scripts would be "guaranteed" to reach recipients too (presumably referring to webmail interface) - so apparently it will overrule users' options to turn off remote images, thereby giving senders verification that the addressee saw the email.
That's what "legit spammer" means. A more truthful term for it is "selling the customers to marketers". |
|
MJL
@atg.com
| There's no way technically to override a user's settings in the web browser or other user agent if the user says "don't display images" or "don't display images from 3rd party servers".
I think what they mean by images and scripts being guaranteed is that the mailbox provider won't filter the text of the message to remove them before they even hit the user's mailbox. That seems reasonable to me on the face of it.
Without commenting on the merits of charging for this service, the idea of an AOL or Yahoo consulting some trusted authority to verify that Acme.com is a legitimate sender (not a spammer, not launching phishing attacks, responding to unsubscribe requests, etc.) and allowing Acme.com's content through to the mailbox without being filtered, stripped, or otherwise transformed doesn't seem objectionable. You may find the idea of someone charging Acme.com for this special treatment objectionable, but that's a separate issue from "overriding the user's preferences" about whether or not to download and view images. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by MJL :
There's no way technically to override a user's settings in the web browser or other user agent if the user says "don't display images" or "don't display images from 3rd party servers".
I think what they mean by images and scripts being guaranteed is that the mailbox provider won't filter the text of the message to remove them before they even hit the user's mailbox. That seems reasonable to me on the face of it.
Normally, if I have the "do not display" switch activated, I will get a place-holder image displayed in lieu of the actual image (which will not be "uselessly" fetched [since it is not going to be displayed] thus preventing the user from being monitored). What they MAY do for these messages is to fetch the image (or web-bug) and THEN check the "do not display" setting. This will delivery the place-holder image to the user while STILL allowing the "Legit" Spammer to use Web-Bugs and track the user's retrieval of the message. |
|
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
1 edit | reply to dadkins
Grrrrr . . . . send me spam . . . and it gets reported, I don't really care if you're on AOL's "Legit Spammer" list or not.
In fact . . . I'll probably diligently research and report any and all related URLs, off-site hosted cgi_bin scripts, credit processing affiliates and anything else I can find out of any "Legit Spammer" junk.
If AOL says your legit . . . that means I'll be looking over it with a fine-tooth comb.
--
Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? |
|
ltjordan
join:2001-12-02
Hyattsville, MD | reply to Sr Tech
Amen. They can't stop the spam so they might as well get paid for their troubles. |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to MJL
said by MJL :
I think what they mean by images and scripts being guaranteed is that the mailbox provider won't filter the text of the message to remove them before they even hit the user's mailbox. That seems reasonable to me on the face of it. That's what I was referring to. I thought it was obvious. Browsers do have an option to turn off all images, but I've never met anyone who actually used it.
Yahoo mail, for example, has an option in the email settings labeled "do not retrieve remote images referenced in emails" or similar. According to the article, and the company's website, the email provider overrides this user rule for the "certified" senders.
And I disagree with your judgment that it's acceptable. It's legal of course, as they're entitled to offer their email service on whatever terms they want. It is reprehensible though, because it's clearly contrary to account-holders' preferences. It's also deceptive: last time I looked, Yahoo at least did not disclose any exceptions to honoring users's preferences. |
|
quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL | reply to Ammler
The majority of sites don't do anything evil with your email address, but it only takes one to deliver a ton of spam. Try BugMeNot. |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| reply to dadkins
said by dadkins  :Uhm... WTF is a "Legit Spammer"? Same thing as an honest politician, I suppose.
In other words, an oxymoron. |
|
sfdfds
@comcast.net | reply to quatrix
Just use a garbage email to sign for those, thats what I do. |
|
