How many businesses use AOL? Most AOLers are consumers and their kids. They don't have the same service expectations.
-----Original Message----- From: M. David Leonard [mailto:mdl@equinox.shaysnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1:42 PM
Peter-
This is nothing new - AOL was silently discarding e-mail a year ago. What's worse, when I contacted them I was told that they have an automated system *which does NOT generate reports for the human postmasters* so the staff does not know what domains are being blackholed without grepping through the logs on scores of SMTP servers. I find it difficult to believe that anyone could run a business like that but, hey, they seem to have a lot of customers who either don't care if e-mail gets through or don't know how much AOL loses for them.
David Leonard ShaysNet
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 01:36:02PM -0500, ken harris. wrote:
If the MSNBC article is anywhere near correct (yeah, a
what AOL was doing was black-holing any "high-volume"
big assumption) then source. While that
is a noble goal, the fact that any mailing list would fall into that category is pretty lame.
http://members.aol.com/adamkb/aol/mailfaq/dropped-mail.html#lists
This basically means AOL is violating the very spirit of SMTP - you say '250 message accepted', and you deliver it to all recipients you specified acceptance for, or produce bounces.
Greetz, Peter.
Roeland- In my case, it was the Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL) which had a formmail script for new members to join on their web site (which ShaysNet hosts). The form was e-mailed to their membership chairman's account on AOL. Now, I'm not saying this is a good idea, but this was what they were doing. It appears that most people - even those who haven't read the appropriate RFCs - fully expect ALL e-mail to be delivered to the intended recipient(s). Speaking from my experience, people seem to regard e-mail as equivalent to USPS first-class mail and have the expectation that it will be handled as such. No one I know considers it excusable or acceptable that e-mail can and will be silently discarded by anyone other than the final recipient. Uh, anyone other than those in the AOL postmaster's office, that is. David Leonard ShaysNet On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
How many businesses use AOL? Most AOLers are consumers and their kids. They don't have the same service expectations.
-----Original Message----- From: M. David Leonard [mailto:mdl@equinox.shaysnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 1:42 PM
Peter-
This is nothing new - AOL was silently discarding e-mail a year ago. What's worse, when I contacted them I was told that they have an automated system *which does NOT generate reports for the human postmasters* so the staff does not know what domains are being blackholed without grepping through the logs on scores of SMTP servers. I find it difficult to believe that anyone could run a business like that but, hey, they seem to have a lot of customers who either don't care if e-mail gets through or don't know how much AOL loses for them.
David Leonard ShaysNet
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 01:36:02PM -0500, ken harris. wrote:
If the MSNBC article is anywhere near correct (yeah, a
what AOL was doing was black-holing any "high-volume"
big assumption) then source. While that
is a noble goal, the fact that any mailing list would fall into that category is pretty lame.
http://members.aol.com/adamkb/aol/mailfaq/dropped-mail.html#lists
This basically means AOL is violating the very spirit of SMTP - you say '250 message accepted', and you deliver it to all recipients you specified acceptance for, or produce bounces.
Greetz, Peter.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:17:22PM -0500, M. David Leonard wrote:
what they were doing. It appears that most people - even those who haven't read the appropriate RFCs - fully expect ALL e-mail to be delivered to the intended recipient(s).
Especially those who've read the 1986 law requiring it.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 18:37:33 EST, Shawn McMahon <smcmahon@eiv.com> said:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:17:22PM -0500, M. David Leonard wrote:
=20 what they were doing. It appears that most people - even those who=20 haven't read the appropriate RFCs - fully expect ALL e-mail to be=20 delivered to the intended recipient(s).
Especially those who've read the 1986 law requiring it.
Citation, please? -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 06:47:31PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Especially those who've read the 1986 law requiring it.
Citation, please?
Title 18, Chapter 119, sections 2510 through 2522. It forbids "interception" of electronic mail. Interception is defined as "acquiring the contents", but it's defined broadly enough that if you get the message onto your hard drive and don't deliver it, obviously you weren't acquiring it for the purpose of delivering it, so you have intercepted it for reasons not related to providing the service, and thus have committed a felony for EACH email intercepted.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Shawn McMahon wrote:
Especially those who've read the 1986 law requiring it. Citation, please? Title 18, Chapter 119, sections 2510 through 2522. It forbids "interception" of electronic mail. Interception is defined as "acquiring the contents", but it's defined broadly enough that if you get the message onto your hard drive and don't deliver it, obviously you weren't acquiring it for the purpose of delivering it, so you have intercepted it for reasons not related to
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 06:47:31PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: providing the service, and thus have committed a felony for EACH email intercepted.
Then presumably rejecting the connection with a '571 eat my spamfilter' outright is legal. -Dan
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 04:36:10PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
Then presumably rejecting the connection with a '571 eat my spamfilter' outright is legal.
That's how I read it. But I damn sure don't want to get into a discussion about this law here; that'd send Susan over the edge. :-) It's old news, passed in 1986, talk to your lawyer. Or email me in private for those few details I can give about the one time somebody went up against me on this law.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
How many businesses use AOL? Most AOLers are consumers and their kids. They don't have the same service expectations.
I think you'd be shocked by the number of small businesses that use AOL. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
Unless the network is lying to me again, jlewis@lewis.org said:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
How many businesses use AOL? I think you'd be shocked by the number of small businesses that use AOL.
I think you'd be shocked by the number of upper-managers of even mid-sized businesses that have their mail routed to AOL accounts. AlanC
I hate to say it, because I (*&*$^&% AOL, but I have users traveling to spain and tokyo and other far reaches of the globe. They can always get a POP to dial up when using an AOL account. We have yet to go to a city where they cannot get on the net with their same $20 a month account No special instructions, no need to check first. James ----- Original Message ----- From: <jlewis@lewis.org> To: "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com> Cc: "'M. David Leonard'" <mdl@equinox.shaysnet.com>; "Peter van Dijk" <peter@dataloss.nl>; <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 5:29 PM Subject: RE: AOL holes again.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
How many businesses use AOL? Most AOLers are consumers and their kids. They don't have the same
service
expectations.
I think you'd be shocked by the number of small businesses that use AOL.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
At 6:17 PM -0500 2001/03/20, James M. Shuler III wrote:
I hate to say it, because I (*&*$^&% AOL, but I have users traveling to spain and tokyo and other far reaches of the globe. They can always get a POP to dial up when using an AOL account. We have yet to go to a city where they cannot get on the net with their same $20 a month account No special instructions, no need to check first.
James
I have an account with http://www.attbusiness.net/ for the same purpose. The only place I've been recently where there wasn't a local dialup was in the French Antilles -- St.Barths and St.Martin.
participants (9)
-
Alan Clegg -
Dan Hollis -
James M. Shuler III -
jlewis＠lewis.org -
M. David Leonard -
Roeland Meyer -
Shawn McMahon -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
Wayne