90% of the junk mail I get is from spammers whose email addresses are fake. If mass mailers had to register and pay, I don't think that I'd get 1% of the junk mail I get now. Not to mention that, all this junk mail is costing our ISP a fortune. Who do you think they get that money back from. If mass mailers were paying and they ALL had to pay for each email, most wouldn't do it. I don't even like getting mail from friends when they send to me and dozons of others. Each person that has my email address on their computer puts me and my computer at risk. I don't see any reason that anyone has to email more than a dozen people at once. If individuals are sending invitations or what ever to friends, so they send a dozen emails to a dozen people. Anyone sending to 100 people at a time should be considered for fees.

They just don't care about their users !!!!

They just care about the money...

Just a stupid idea. I will no longer be using Yahoo. It's just a way to make money from spam and I don't care what they say.

Just when I thought the email spam issue couldn't get any worse...

This is funny- the phone companies did this with CallerID. First they sell the service to the customers so they can see whos calling, then they sell another option to the marketer to not display their CallerID.

Cash in both hands I say and morally wrong business practices as well. On issues like spam, I wouldn't be playing both sides of the fence.

And like 'zridling' says spam is ok, if someone pays to make sure it get through.

Personally, I love my gmail account.

So what AOL and Yahoo are saying is that SPAM is okay as long as someone pays for it, including the user to get rid of AOL/YAHOO-approved SPAM!

anyone using aol deserves to get spammed, as for yahoo, im getting too mutch spam on that address allready, so i switched to gmail, seems to do the job.

amd this filter bypass thing, booooooo!, they just want to make more money, most ppl just check their junk mail once in a while if theyre expecting a automated response or summit.

YAHOO....inprove your filtering!

Some ID-10T hits Report Spam on our newsletter and the next time I send it out we are blocked and I have to get approval again from AOL. All they have to do is follow our remove link and complete it. Our system is not automated and it all comes to me and I remove anyone before the next mailing goes out. (Which I do the mailings).

One user is NOT going to blacklist your site. Even a thousand users, its the default setting on the appliance that is used to detect spam. It goes by content and various other features that resemble spam, is why something gets filtered.

Yahoo and AOL will charge, because they have to manually setup rules to ALLOW certain domains from being blocked. It doesn't mean you can't block them in the future from your own mailbox, but some messages instantly get blocked to ALL locations at Yahoo or AOL, and not even given a chance to get through.

Like the Katrina disaster. The Red Cross would mass mail millions upon millions of recipients, that would trigger a spam incident, because it IS a spam incident. If they put in rules to allow traffic from the red cross, new emails from them wouldn't get automatically blocked. Plus I would imagine paying for the service would allow them to have a certain number of domains under their control..

That's not to say a spammer could do the same thing, but if they do it right its just like a back stage pass. Just because you are allowed back stage, doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do whatever you want. You still have to play by the rules. AND, it doesn't mean if quit playing by the rules, you won't be filtered in the future..

Spammers, never play by the rules.. That's where this system would work great..

The tough part is, WHO defines the rules.. now we have a HUGE question mark.

I receive thousands of spam emails per week. Do you realize how ridiculous it is for you to say, if someone does not want email from you, to just follow the "remove me link" in each email. How would you feel about doing this on a few thousand unwanted emails per week? Think carefully about what you said.

My company, an armiture of TRICARE (the Department of Defense health plan), is spamlisted by AOL as it is, for no apparent reason. And I don't forsee us paying any fee to be able to send e-mail to their members. We'll continue telling them what we're telling them now the second we hear @aol.com: "Your ISP has decided not to accept e-mail from our company. We cannot update you on your claim/send you claim forms/send you information through e-mail."

Legitimate companies will see this as a form of extortion. The only people who will pay are going to be bulk advertisers.

Your company is spamming in some form or fashion. For one thing, its AOL, do you really WANT to reach those people? Who is your target audience.. chances are, AOL is probably not a good place to start.

I cannot see your emails, but I would be willing to bet, you did 1 of 3 things.

1) You mass emailed a bunch of people at AOL, and the majority of those people flagged your emails as junk.

2) The emails contain, websites, email addresses, or many links either at the end or beginning of the emails, or had superfluous content, like disclaimer statements.. extra space. A typical email is small, maybe your company adds a bunch of space depending on the server format when it leaves your server, and AOL doesn't want to figure your format, so they just negate it.

3) AOL did a random test on some spam emails from your company, and maybe they determined it so closely resembled other types of email, that they couldn't decipher your email from a spammer..

Another thing to, you obviously don't work in IT, but your domain may be tricare.com. But your email server may be mail-tricare.com or some other address, that does NOT resolve to the same host as your registered domain. That will get you flagged, many times over..

I can guarantee, AOL isn't the ONLY one flagging you, if any of these are the case.. AOL is the one that TELLS you they are doing it.. so, I hate AOL myself, and if AOL blocks you, so what?

as big as AOL is, its NOT the only ISP out there, and I bet AOL isn't even 1% of all emails.. And people have multiple email accounts anyway, so your message is still reaching the majority of users..

And its not extortion. Its called "progress". If you are so shortsided that you see them as manipulating this into some sort of profit, you are sadly mistaken. You obviously haven't been keeping an eye on ways to STOP spam.. charging for email is the most agreeable.. This is just the first step.

The only time we send mail is by verbal request for printed information on a phone call. We have only recently set up an opt-in for e-mail notifications regarding claims status. We have nothing to gain by advertising ... the only way you can get in is through military service, and in that, it's automatic. Why advertise?

As far as the prattle about this-or-that.com ... this is the government. It is not .com, it is .mil ... but that's not the point; the point is that legitimate companies are being spamlisted for no apparent reason, and this new offer to slip past the spamlisting is only going to be seen as extortion.

We send information to those who request it. If they're using AOL, it's not by our chosing. We simply inform them that we can't send mail there and encourage them to seek us on the web, which most of them can't figure out, hence the e-mail with links to the information they're seeking or PDF attachments of forms.

I had to chuckle inside when I read this article. It first illustrates what I have been telling all the current AOL customers. It is also sad that the majority of the AOL users are the bulk of Americans - the baby-boomers. They have been using AOL for years and it is all they know. To change them away from them is a very difficult task for them to take and understand.

We have groups of companies banning together to decide what is ADWARE and SPYWARE; we even have companies that have developed software and hardware for the detection and deletion of SPAM from our mailboxes. Much of what AOL, Yahoo, Google, and MSN are using to keep our mail clean. But somewhere along the line, revenue has been lost and therefore they are changing their tunes. We have seen and heard this one too many times lately. Leaving us again vulnerable. ADWARE, SPYWARE, and STDs all belong it the same category. There are not any good ones and you don’t want to ignore it, because it will become something much worse in the long run.

We all know the definition of SPAM, but why can't the very companies that provide us with an e-mail account determine what is legitimate and what is not. Now, to take what is and label it as legitimate is maddening. It is all about money; and if you can’t see this, just read the articles on Google.

There is a system for the identification of SPAM and that should be left alone(maybe tightened). I feel the process, just needs to be adhered to more. For example, if I get an e-mail that has slipped through the firewall, I should be given the opportunity to delete this message as well as to unsubscribe from further receiving messages(from that company or individual) by just using the link within the e-mail. But, that doesn’t always work. In fact, it increases the likelihood that I will receive additional messages and very soon. I should be able to allow my “Reward Zone” e-mail to reach my inbox, but not the monthly, and often weekly, supply of newsletters telling me of their great deals. I didn’t sign up for that.

It shouldn’t matter that the companies revenue is based on the newsletters themselves. This is like the drug czars telling the law enforcement that the selling of drugs is vital to their income and therefore should be allowed to continue. Then, law enforcement telling the drug czars that, for a fee, they have a procedure in which to allow drugs to rach those that actually want it, but we are going to keep an eye on you in case you try to sell it to someone that doesn’t want it.

I don’t have a problem with the companies paying money to bypass a server for the delivery of mail to a specific customer that wants the mail; and they truly monitor the abuse by these companies to the sending of unsolicited mail to others not on their lists. However, “I” do want to continue having the protection they so described when I signed up for the e-mail service. If I so decide that I want to SPAM, then I should be allowed to place my name on a list to receive it, not the other way around.

IMO

Finally someone on here with brains. Thank you for that awesome insite. I could not have said it better myself. People would complain that they recieve too much junk mail in the email boxes. Yahoo, AOL, MSN, and other companies have provided tight SPAM filters to filter those emails out to keep the email boxes clean. Now that cost alot of money to filter SPAM and yet yahoo.com, aol.com, msn.com email boxes are FREEEEEEEEEEEEE Service. Now getting that type of protection in my email box on a free account is GREAT. My DSL companies does not even provide this service. My box is always filled SPAM which I don't use anymore. I can care less. So If these companies want to start charging SPAMers money to send out their newletters at least they are doing somethign to reduce cause If I was a SPAMer I sure as hel# not going to pay 300.00 to send out my letters. I would rather SPAM other serivces that don't have these filters. SO my hats off to these companies that are working to reduce this but yet people still bit#$ about. If you don't like then use something else!!!! Its that simple. And to "Athome" Thank you for post something worth reading in this thread!!!! For the rest of you grow up and get a life!!!

athome, I think you are merely assuming that the "majority" of AOL users are baby boomers. Many, many of us are past that stage and many, many of us use AOL because we like it. Also, many, many of us have tried other services and like AOL. Get used to the idea that many AOL users chuckle at comments such as yours as well. We also chuckle at individuals such as yourself who like to lecture. Now, go peddle your papers, sonny.

I am not assuming at all! And ask why the negative attitude. It is your right to use whatever you like. I have been successful in helping many(and I use that word lightly) in switching from their overpriced and bloated ISP to a more reliable one. Much like all ISPs that provide a browser, they forget the OS they they are operating on and in time, allow it to be corrupted - and much by their design.

If you like AOL, continue to use it - no one is stopping you. You, by reading BETANEWS and writing comments on the site are not an average user and therefore are aware of what needs to happen on your computer to stay running(I am assuming). However, not the same for many of its users - sorry you had to hear that. But your attacks are similar to a high school kid left alone in computer class.

Addition: And, it is not surpising that AOL and Yahoo are doing this, but just confused why Google hadn't thought about this first and this article was about them. I can now see Google doing something like this(if not already).

athome again good comment there buddy. About google to why they have not done this. I would read their Terms of Service. In there they talk about useing the information that you send email in as Marketing Stuff to your inbox or something like that. I remember reading something about that online somewhere but can not remember. And they admited to it as well. I guess would be that is why they have not done something like this yet or the might do it who knows. We will have to wait and see.

I am not assuming at all!
--------------------------------------------
Yes, you are assuming and the reason I say that is because you have not been factual. Like some of the other sheep who put down AOL you follow along with them. What do you cite to the "many" as a "reason" you want them to leave AOL?
I will continue to use AOL. I have tried several others and none hold a candle to AOL as far as I'm concerned. I like the ease of use, the quickness of response when I sign on. I like their spam filters as well. Will I pay extra to use this new service? No, probably not because I don't have to nor does anyone else.
Your use of the word "attacks" by the way is merely a projection of your own attitude toward AOL and a bit immature.
And you are right, I am not an average user and I am very aware of what needs to happen on my computer to stay running and it runs quite smoothly after all these years and will continue to do so. I could be wrong but I believe that you are implying that AOL may have something to do with AOL has something to do with comptuers not running as they should. Nothing could be further from the truth. Regular maintenance on your computer just as on your car will keep it running smoothly regardless of which service, AOL, MSN, Google or Yahoo or any other for that matter, that one chooses to use. And, if defending AOL is similar to a high school kid left alone in a computer class is what you believe, your analogy is quite poor at best.

You know those who are dropping their Yahoo accounts, are NOT reading the article. READ it again, it says LEGTIMATE companies like NY Times, Experian, and Red Cross are being blocked as spam, at the FILTEr level which means, BEFORE it gets to your inbox. These legit companies don't want to accidentally be filtered, unless the end user specifically clicks "this is spam" for this email.

I get emails from wanda1@34rrtz.com or some weird domain that its OBVIOUS its spoofed. REAL companies that are on the level WILL remove you from their mailing list, if you tell them. Other spammers will not. Those other spammers will get filtered, but some of these companies I would have to agree, shouldn't arbitrarily be considered spam.

Its like a personal invite list. Spammers aren't going to register every site or name just to send spam, ESPN could register, Red Cross could register, there are only one..

So the article doesn't state that these legit emails NEVER get filtered, its indentifying those companies as legitimate, and they should not automatically go on the filter list for EVERYONE at Yahoo, only those users that don't wish to have these emails.

Some spam get blocked, and NO ONE at Yahoo ever sees them. A filter appliance throws the baby out with the bath water, and if there is any doubt, its blocked. It could conceivably hurt companies like Red Cross if the appliance blocked them without giving ANY end users a chance to see it..

I was upset at first, but after re-reading the article, this makes sense... Let's just hope it works.

Well, the word Legitimate has to be determined by the person receiving the e-mail, not the companies that are sending it to your or those companies that said they will filter it.

Please read the article again.

"As part of the registration process, these companies have also agreed to only contact those who have asked to receive communications from them in order to use the service."

Therefore the person recieving the email has asked to recieve it = Legitimate E-mail.

Excuse me, I hate those that say "read it again" when you are not thinking when you are reading - but please read it yourself. Read between the lines. Why would someone have to unsubscribe to an e-mail that you claim is legitimate. If you are getting mail and you have to unsubscribe(SPAM) then it isn't legitimate. How can this happen? Now, we have good SPAM practices? Why would AOL and Yahoo have to watch the unsubscribe process if it is legitimate mail in their eyes.

Here's a thought, for every unsubscribe e-mail that is sent, they will have to pay $.25 - what do you think? Maybe, there should be a "do not e-mail" list much like the "do not call."

They just want a way in which to charge for the delivery of SPAM(but call it legitimate). SPAM in any form is just that - SPAM, not legitimate. In whose eyes are they defining legitimate - not mine. OHH!, I forgot it is AOL - maybe you and TomA102210 should get together.

Quite right. The problem is many people regard email which they have subscribed to on web sites of legitimate organisations as SPAM. It is legitimate email. If enough AOL users report email from that organisation as spam, instead of unsubscribing, AOL will block all email from that source as spam. This registration and payment process will stop these emails being blocked by AOL. AOL users will not unsubscribe from such emails correctly because of the guidance, "never unsubscribe from spam using the links in the email"

Well, the word Legitimate has to be determined by the person receiving the e-mail, not the companies that are sending it to your or those companies that said they will filter it.

I agree, this should be the decision of the person receiving the email, not the sender, or the company making money from allowing it to be sent.

Let's see if we can make this a little more simple to be sure "we" all understand.

Let's say you have a subscription to a news paper or magazine. It is delivered to you through the postal service. Over time you decide you no longer wish to receive this publication you have subscribed to. What do you do? Do you tell the postal worker to stop the delivery of it? Why would you do that? That's silly. Call the company you have the subscription with and cancel it.

Now let's put this in internet form. You have visited a news papers website, or a website that sells a product. While on their site you filled out a form and clicked a little box that says "I would like to receive email updates about the companies products and services". They start to send you emails about the products and services. Wow it works! Now after some time you have lost intrest in this companies offerings. So what should you do? Tell your email provider to stop letting them send to you? That's just silly. You would contact the company (by clicking an unsubscribe link or revisiting where you signed up)and let them know you are no longer interested.

Do "we" all understand?

Obviously, you don't and you think literally. But the rest of the world has a better grasp of what will and ultimately does happen with e-mail.

Why would there ever be a need to watch unsubscriptions if they worked. You should be able to go to the Internet company that you signed up on and remove yourself from it there.

I realize there are companies like Red Cross and New York Times that people subscribe to, but lets face it, they do mass mailings from the beginning and by not unsubscribing in the first place, does that constitute that you want the e-mail(legitimate)? If you signed up for it, then it should not be blocked in the beginning. But we are not talking about that type of mail. That is not SPAM.

A lot of people use SPAM Guards to take the incomming e-mail and run it through filters that remove/delete the mail. They don't unsubscribe. It would take days and sometimes months to do such a chore - and then to have it not work.

If e-mail was a perfect process as you want it to be, then we would not have problems. The comments here only highlight those problems, but do realize that there is such a thing as legitimate but you seem to want to leave that in the hands of the person receiving money for its delivery rather than the ones receiving the SPAM. This has been the point from the beginning, but you seem either unable or too &*&^%$ to listen and concede the point others are making.

So if you would like to discuss the real issues, then leave your comments.

The type of email that you say "this is not SPAM" is exactly the type of email that AOL are aiming this delivery service at. I suggest you read up on AOL's Email blocking policies, then re read the article.

I have said this once, and I will say it again, I don't care WHAT legal definition some boneheads behind a desk call SPAM, if I say its SPAM, then its spam, and I want it DISCONTINUED!

This is bogus. They shouldn't be allowed to side step the filter, just because they contribute..

Should terrorists who invest billions in corporations be allowed in to this country? NO! SPAM is a type of intrusion on my computer, I am not going to welcome, and if I didn't put it there, it needs to be REMOVED!

What the hell is this crap now, just because they PAY. A crook in a 3 piece suit is still a crook.

exactly.

one word for this move "lame" :) That is why Gmail prevails

You know if EVERY email cost a quarter cent we wouldn't have a spam problem. I'd gladly pay a full penny per email but I doubt a spammer would pay the price for millions of messages and with a positive action required for payment a zombie computer couldn't send it either.

I like that idea, except instead of paying, we should have a credit for emails. The average person sends what.. maybe 4000 emails a month? Maybe more, maybe less, just a WAG. Anyway, that would amount to 40 bucks. A spammer wouldn't have 10's of thousands a week. They aren't going to pay $100,000 a month to send email messages, HOPING to get a return.. At least, I don't think so.

But your ISP can credit you the 40 dollars, obviously a spammer could use the same tactic, and simply send less emails.. but that would be one way to also lower spam..

Your idea has merit, the problem is getting everyone to agree on HOW this will be implemented.

4,000 emails a month?

When do you sleep?

well there goes my yahoo mail, i only used it mainly for spam any ways.

I guess it is time to STOP using Yahoo mail.

1. anyone that uses AOL needs their butt kicked. This is exactly the kind of behavior I expect from AOL. 2. Yahoo on the other hand, I never would have expect them to turn out to be a bunch of back stabbing pricks playing both sides of the spam fence. They say they are dedicated to stopping spam yet all these spammer idiot have to do is throw money at em.

Aw heck, crashoverride, maybe it's you who needs his butt kicked for trying to lecture on who uses what service. Get over your immaturity and grow up. Clean up your language as well and get a life.

I have a concern that one day they tighten up their Spam FIlters and say, Well so many Spam emails come from a certain domain like Hotmail or Gmail that we're going to block most of the emails from that domain. They could easily block emails sent from friends and family and start charging to make sure they get received without being junked.

Well, personally I never liked AOL from there early days when windoze 98 came with it as a online service to present day bloatware. Now opening the doors to spammers for a fee, well thats like pouring the petrol while the villan torches the building.. absoluelty unreal and a justification to income over users.

AOL you should be ashamed

I am a paying Yahoo! customer. I pay for expanded Yahoo! mail services. It really seems to me they want customers to pay for extended services as well as those trying to send customers spam. Yahoo! is moving dangerously close to changing their loyalties from consumer protection and services to courting the "enemy".

I am going to take a wait and see approach on this issue and hope they allow their customers an option to not receive the garbage that these companies wish to send. If my worst fears are realized, I will cancel my services with Yahoo! and move to a more consumer friendly company. Judging from the responses here Yahoo! is in danger of alienating its good will with its client base and the mere fact that AOL and Yahoo! appear in the same article is disturbing to say the least. I truly hope they rethink this strategy.

I wonder if the negative press and feedback as well as the potential loss of paying customers is worth the gains Yahoo! will make from allowing "pre-paid Spam". In any event I am less than pleased with the news and in the final analysis have a new view of Yahoo!. As for AOL well it couldn't get any worse. It seems a shame that Yahoo! is starting to make the same mistakes as AOL.

I am a paying Yahoo! customer. I pay for expanded Yahoo! mail services. It really seems to me they want customers to pay for extended services as well as those trying to send customers spam. Yahoo! is moving dangerously close to changing their loyalties from consumer protection and services to courting the "enemy".

Same here, if "My paid Yahoo" starts letting a bunch of paid spam emails through, I will have to go else where.

Great. So Yahoo/AOL wants to make the net into TV. WHO is still using AOL these days? And why would anyone use Yahoo for anything?

oh crap! now we get 'Yahoo/AOL Certified' spams directly in our mailboxes. boo

If you rely on AOL for your e-mail, you're already screwed. I won't pick on Yahoo! like that though. Let's not forget, you can always (A) switch to another e-mail service for FREE FREE FREE FREE, or (B) get your own hosted email domain for next to nothing. My God. Some of you act like AOL and Yahoo! control the email flow of the Internet.

What irony! AOL, who has spammed its own users for years, is going to be part of determining which emails are spam and which are legitimate. I don't trust this new plan because end users work hard to filter out spam and rely in part on header information to do so. Having companies like AOL introduce "legitimate headers" into email will make our task more difficult. I suppose this is logical since one cannot expect the foxes to protect the hen house. Still, I feel disgusted and even more determined not to do business with them.

"What irony! AOL, who has spammed its own users for years,..."
-----------------------------------------------
You don't have anything substantive to back up that claim.Most AOL bashers heard something from a friend of a friend who heard it from a friend. If you don't like AOL, don't do business with them. It's as simple as that.

TomA102210
Every post you have has been nothing but attacks on others, please keep your comments to the articles. If you have something to say in defense of AOL or other news, please state what it is rather than attack those that are just giving their comments and opinions. Last I knew, these are still free and legitimate in the world.

You don't have anything substantive to back up that claim.Most AOL bashers heard something from a friend of a friend who heard it from a friend. If you don't like AOL, don't do business with them. It's as simple as that.

Tom, I don't do business with AOL, never have and never will, for one very simple reason. They are too expensive. I prefer to keep more of my money in my pocket than give it to AOL, and yes I am older like you. I also am on S.S. and need every penny I can get.

Every post you have has been nothing but attacks on others, please keep your comments to the articles.
----------------------------------------------
You might be best off listening to your own advice athome. You attack legitimate providers with no substance to your attacks. I respond. Clean up your own back yard. You're like the pot calling the kettle black and not only that but you are in denial as well.

What this article doesn't mention is that AOL and Yahoo! will get about half of revenue generated by these e-stamps. So if Amazon pays 1 cent to Goodmail to certify their message, AOL or Yahoo! gets half a cent of it. So in the end, this is a huge source of revenue for both of these companies as well.

Please, remember: "Participation is not mandatory" means that it's voluntary. One doesn't need to have this service, it's only if you WANT the service.

participation is not necessary for the companies...end users are screwed

You took that out of context:

"Participation is not mandatory, however companies who don't register will receive no assurance that their e-mails are making it to their intended destinations."

That means that the COMPANIES don't have to register, it is not referring to the end users. The article doesn't mention if end users will have the option or not to receive the email.

Oh well..

You cannot make that assumption, because none of that information has been commented on... unless you have a reliable news source that you're not sharing.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying you should make sure of that before saying it. :)

spammer OUT!! sue AOL/Yahoo!!

THEY are asking customers to pay for BUGS in their software that may accidentally block legitimate emails.

By subscribing to this service, we are discouraging them from solving the main issue: the dumb filtering software!

Can someone do something about this?

Notably it is the sender who will be paying for the service, that is the service of ensuring we get their spam. (Yeah, it's still spam).

We (as customers) will be "subscribed" to the service by simply using AOL or Yahoo mail solutions. The upside is there is no direct cost to us, the downside is the cost of deleting any email that the sender felt valuable enough to spend 1c on to ensure you have to delete it manually.

Notably mail marketing is still widely used while it costs them 10-20c just to mail it, aside from the cost of printed material. I think we will quickly find this service as lacking greatly, as 1c per email is a drop in the bucket to large marketers.

The main issue is not the filtering software.

I can't believe spam filters work as well as they do. The good spammers know what they're doing and send every single message from a different IP (usually IPs from different continents), with a different header, different subject, and different message body.

I am amazed that any spam filter is able to block spam and let the legitimate e-mail through as much as it does.

The REAL problem is the spammers. Good luck getting them to stop though...

Simple, spam filters now have thousands of checks, DNS IP blacklists, URI blacklists, HELO checks, rules, bayesian and many combinations of the above. Most of that spam (and we get very little,) that we get is plain text spam that has incomprehensible garbled text that is useless to the recipient anyway.

The spam war is won: the spammers have lost: 2006.

"The spam war is won: the spammers have lost: 2006."

I'll believe it when I see it. I work at an ISP. Spam filtering is by no means "simple." We have about 10 blacklists, bayesian filters, URL blacklists, and a couple other proprietary spam filters. We stop most of it, but the spammers get more clever every day.

My opinion: We'll never see the end of it; or at least not soon. Each side will get more and more advanced in how they beat the other side, and it will just go on forever.

It's just like the anti-virus war. All you can do is update signatures and hope you catch everything.

These emails are not spam; the receipient has agreed to receive them:
Quote:
As part of the registration process, these companies have also agreed to only contact those who have asked to receive communications from them in order to use the service.
End Quote.

Notably it is the sender who will be paying for the service, that is the service of ensuring we get their spam. (Yeah, it's still spam).

We (as customers) will be "subscribed" to the service by simply using AOL or Yahoo mail solutions. The upside is there is no direct cost to us, the downside is the cost of deleting any email that the sender felt valuable enough to spend 1c on to ensure you have to delete it manually.

Notably mail marketing is still widely used while it costs them 10-20c just to mail it, aside from the cost of printed material. I think we will quickly find this service as lacking greatly, as 1c per email is a drop in the bucket to large marketers.

My question about all this is as a paying customer of Yahoo, I have the option or marking any email address or URL as "spam". If I mark a email as "spam", even though it might be a paid email, will Yahoo still let it through the filter?

Man, that sucks.

Time to remove Yahoo/AOL free ware from your machines!! Stop letting them track you.

Anyone want a G-Mail Invite? I'd gladly give one to anyone willing to stop using Yahoo. And AOL...yea, that goes without saying.

i want a gmail invite

pj111984@aol.com

i'm sick of aol