Re: Banned URL
From: Matt Silberstein (RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 10/27/05
- Next message: Michael Thompson: "Re: Banned URL"
- Previous message: Notan: "Re: Zone Alarm BS"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Jim Watt: "Re: Banned URL"
- Next in thread: Michael Thompson: "Re: Banned URL"
- Reply: Michael Thompson: "Re: Banned URL"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:37:37 GMT
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:05:53 +0200, in alt.computer.security , Jim
Watt <jimwatt@aol.no_way> in
<ac52m117kqeisvh5pg2g6nk764gf9fqnbk@4ax.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:49:13 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't have my website in my sig. And I am sorry if I am giving too
>>many lines to try to prevent genocide. I guess you have more important
>>things on your mind.
>
>This group is about computer security, there are a lot of other
>problems in the world this is not the place for them
>
And the content of my post was about computer security. That you
decided to make my sig an issue suggests that you have interests other
than computer security.
>>> it looks
>>>more like a cheap attempt to put your political message in peoples
>>>face rather than anything serious.
>>
>>Oh wow, I would try to get people to know about genocide, how immoral
>>of me.
>
>ah so you are spamming.
No, I was posting an on topic question about a security issue.
>>>You fail to explain how a URL is allegedly 'banned' by AOL
>>
>>I am sorry if I was not clear. I sent an email to a friend with the
>>sig you see. They blocked it and told me it was due to a URL. By
>>modifying the sig I figured out which URL was the problem.
>
>If you bothered to read the rest of the post, you might understand
>why you are wrong and what actually is happening.
What was actually happening is that if that particular URL was in the
post, and there was *no sig*, the email was bounced by AOL. I saw
people make various suggestions, many of them wrong.
>>>now read
>>>
>>>http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/safety/technologies/senderid/default.mspx
>
>>>presumably their users are happy with the way their email is sanitised
>>
>>What a notion. Is this your normal view, that what companies do we
>>presume is liked?
>
>If their clients are happy, they continue to use the service, if not
>they go elsewhere. However, if you are sending unsolicited
>emails to AOL clients maybe they reported you and your address
>is blocked.
What gave you the idea that I send any unsolicited emails to anyone.
You seem to think that making stuff up is a useful tool. I have not
found that so, but YMMV.
In this particular case I was sending email to a friend. I suspect
that if they did not like that particular email they would have told
me instead of having AOL somehow block only the emails with that
single URL.
Are you actually unaware that AOL does this kind of content blocking?
And do you think that content blocking is not a security issue?
-- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
- Next message: Michael Thompson: "Re: Banned URL"
- Previous message: Notan: "Re: Zone Alarm BS"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Jim Watt: "Re: Banned URL"
- Next in thread: Michael Thompson: "Re: Banned URL"
- Reply: Michael Thompson: "Re: Banned URL"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
