Yet another reason to Hate AOL

It seems AOL has initiated some sort of an anti-Spam blocker that no longer
accepts group emails.

Of course, the unintended downside is that AOL users in our "Friends of Iowa
City Airport" mailing list can no longer receive email updates -- unless I'm
willing and able to send each of them their own, individual copy of the
update.

I understand being upset with spam, but this is kinda like using a hatchet
to kill the mosquito on your arm...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I understand being upset with spam, but this is kinda like using a hatchet
to kill the mosquito on your arm...

Actually, I just tried sending several AOL users email -- and THEY bounced
back.

Is AOL having a system-wide problem today? Or are they not accepting
emails from my ISP (Mediacom)?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I am president of a local Realtor's group and we had the same problems.

First we got blocked as spam because we sent "bulk mail" to 23 addresses.
Then we tried individually but found out we are now "blacklisted as a known
sender of spam."

The best advice I give to people is to get rid of AOL. I know that won't
work in your case though.

They are using the wrong definition of spam, they do not understand the
difference between solicited and unsolicited.



"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:hIhFc.14724$wY5.9669@attbi_s54...
I understand being upset with spam, but this is kinda like using a
hatchet
to kill the mosquito on your arm...

Actually, I just tried sending several AOL users email -- and THEY bounced
back.

Is AOL having a system-wide problem today? Or are they not accepting
emails from my ISP (Mediacom)?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

The best advice I give to people is to get rid of AOL.

There's a reason it's known as "AOHell".

Or is that the insider's view...?

They are using the wrong definition of spam, they do not understand
the difference between solicited and unsolicited.

I think they do know the difference. The problem is writing software that
can tell the difference.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:

I am president of a local Realtor's group and we had the same problems.

First we got blocked as spam because we sent "bulk mail" to 23 addresses.
Then we tried individually but found out we are now "blacklisted as a known
sender of spam."



Have you tried putting all the email addresses in the "BCC" field where
they are invisible instaed of the To or CC fields. This is the biggest
mistake so many people make when sending out multiple receivers. Never
put a string of email addresses in the To or CC fields, whether for a
mailing list, or just to send to family. Always use BCC. Spammers use
siffer software that can pull these addresses and hey pas through a
server. BCC really helps this.

Edward

"Edward Todd" wrote in message
...

Have you tried putting all the email addresses in the "BCC" field where
they are invisible instaed of the To or CC fields.


Yes, of course. AOL seemed to pick up several coming in that way over
several mailings.

"Edward Todd" wrote in message
...
[...] Always use BCC. Spammers use
siffer software that can pull these addresses and hey pas through a
server. BCC really helps this.

Putting email addresses in the bcc field does nothing to hide the email
addresses, except to the final recipient. All of the email addresses are
easily visible to any of the servers between the sender and the final
recipient, including the final recipient's email server.

To make matters worse, as your advice pertains to this thread, putting email
addresses in the bcc field often sets off spam detection rules.

I do use bcc for large mailings, because it prevents obnoxious reply-alls
when you know a reply-all would never be appropriate. But no one should
believe that using bcc in any way serves to hide the email addresses from
spammers.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:


Putting email addresses in the bcc field does nothing to hide the email
addresses, except to the final recipient. All of the email addresses are
easily visible to any of the servers between the sender and the final
recipient, including the final recipient's email server.

The final recipient is the person *I think* you need to hide the
addresses from. Because if that recipient is using Outlook and they
don't keep their machine secure, a worm can get those addresses and use
it to send a virus and or spam.


--
Chris W

Bring Back the HP 15C
http://hp15c.org

Not getting the gifts you want? The Wish Zone can help.
http://thewishzone.com

To make matters worse, as your advice pertains to this thread, putting
email
addresses in the bcc field often sets off spam detection rules.

Precisely.

That's what I was assuming was triggering the bounce-back, until they
bounced back AGAIN when I sent the messages individually.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Edward Todd" wrote in message
...
[...] Always use BCC. Spammers use
siffer software that can pull these addresses and hey pas through a
server. BCC really helps this.

Putting email addresses in the bcc field does nothing to hide the email
addresses, except to the final recipient. All of the email addresses are
easily visible to any of the servers between the sender and the final
recipient, including the final recipient's email server.

To make matters worse, as your advice pertains to this thread, putting email
addresses in the bcc field often sets off spam detection rules.

I do use bcc for large mailings, because it prevents obnoxious reply-alls
when you know a reply-all would never be appropriate. But no one should
believe that using bcc in any way serves to hide the email addresses from
spammers.

In fact, it does. The addresses in the BCC field (in fact, there's no
such thing, and it's only your mailing program like Outlook that knows
anything about this field; the addresses go to what's known as "the
envelope") are usually visible to 1) your provider's server and 2) your
addressees' providers' servers. Chances are really good that none of
these servers is involved in address fishing for spammers.

Anyway, back to AOL - Jay, the only meaningful way to deal with it is to
try to get AOL users on your list to call their customer support and
complain REALLY LOUD.

Pete

Dima