Re: Banned URL
From: Matt Silberstein (RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 10/30/05
- Previous message: ShadowEyez: "Re: Wireless security"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Jim Watt: "Re: Banned URL"
- Next in thread: Jim Watt: "Re: Banned URL"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:04:56 GMT
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:00:28 +0100, in alt.computer.security , Jim
Watt <jimwatt@aol.no_way> in
<cmq9m1d948kn5ktimar8r56mn1rgjhah53@4ax.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 14:46:59 +0000, Management
><charlienospam@peartreegreen.org> wrote:
>
>>I bet what AOL won't tell us (most likely not even researched) is
>>the level of false positives, that is, good mail labeled as spam.
>
>As I've mentioned the main mechanism they are using is verifying
>the authenticity of the sender. This currently blocks the mail server
>I use as the DNS is not set up for it.
Which is *irrelevant* to this situation. I have no problem with
sending email to my friend, just not email with that URL. How about
you try and see what happens.
>They may or may not be doing content filtering, however they have
>published lists of common message subjects which are flagged as spam.
It was not a subject block either. Try again.
>I assume one of the attractions of using AOL is that they are taking
>steps to keep the noise level down by technological means and
>by taking legal action against the spammers, and they were raffling
>off assets acquired from a spammer to their members - this seemed
>a nice touch compared to the accusations of corporate greed thar
>usually apply.
And what was noise about that URL but not the others?
>However, if the members are happy they keep on paying, there is no
>shortage of service providers.
>
>>And this has nothing to with your original post which was about
>>censorship :)
>
>Maybe but its more likely they have identified messages containing
>lots of URLS as likely spam, or perhaps those particular ones are
>related to unsolicited email, whatever, the original poster wants to
>convince us its a 'security' matter and its not.
Why is three URLs spam? Anyway, as I have pointed out several times
AOL blocks email with that one URL, but not other email. And how about
an actual argument for why blocking my access to data is not a
security issue? Or why supposed security people would have knowledge
about content-blocked email. Don't make unmarked snips, don't attack
me, answer the questions.
>I don't feel threatened by AOL and they are blocking me ...
-- 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"
- Previous message: ShadowEyez: "Re: Wireless security"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Jim Watt: "Re: Banned URL"
- Next in thread: Jim Watt: "Re: Banned URL"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|