I wanted to pass this on because I was not getting my mail on AOL and my
mother was not getting all of her mail on MSN.

I have an opt in online newsletter, and it would get caught in their filters
many times.

My mom would try to flag some senders as safe and still some emails would go
into her "junk" box.

I am upset that an ISP that I pay to send and receive mail blocks mail that
I want but the porn and junk still gets to me.

I would have some sympathy to the problem if it was not so obvious that they
were selling my email address.

My mother figured out MSN was doing this when she was getting s*pam on her
accounts with all MSN addresses, and I too was getting junk mail on AOL with
all AOL addresses.

I guess some people who buy the list do not know how to use the BCC feature,
but they do know to only send around 10 addresses at a time so the filter
thinks they are sending to friends and family.

I have switched to another ISP that states on their website that they will
not sell my address.

Even though I have been with them a short time
and do know it takes time to get junk mail, at this time I hardly know what
s*pam is, and I would never go back to an ISP that sells my info.


My new ISP safenetaccess.com allows me to choose
different filters and I have none on at this time.


I question why other ISP's do not do this, and let
the consumer choose to use a filter as well, and if they do, which ones they
want. I.E. porn, business scams etc.

I really do not understand how a major ISP has the nerve to complain about
the s*pam problem and contribute to it at the same time, then decides what
to block for me, as if I were a child in front of the t.v. with parental
controls.

Kim Ward

-----------------------------
Here is the link on the article I wanted to pass on:

http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/2210551

and a quick summary:

Well known spammer Ronnie Scelson appeared before
the Senate Commerce Committee today, Wednesday,
May 21.

What's most interesting about this appearance is
that Scelson claimed, as part of his testimony, the following:

"... that AOL gladly sold him the company's entire
customer directory. Given the opportunity to deny
that, Leonsis, vice chairman of AOL, did not."

....

Failing to deny a claim is not the same as admitting that it's true, of
course. The rep couldn't possibly be expected to know every detail of every
transaction made by a company the size of AOL.

Still, while it's hardly an open and shut case,
there seems to be some reason to suspect that this one may well be true.

First, Scelson could be courting a fairly serious
libel suit if the claim could not be proven.

Secondly, I have a hard time picturing anyone
setting themselves up for the kind of problems
you can get by lying to a Senate committee just
to take a poke at AOL.

....

It will be interesting to see AOL's official
response to this.

Did AOL sell their user directory to a spammer? If so, when? And for what
price?

If not, what will their response to Scelson's claims be?

Something to keep an eye on.

Feel free to pass this around. This isn't the sort
of thing that should be discussed only in Senate Committee hearings.


Paul Myers