What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.84 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So let me get this straight.
AOL MEMBERS use my website, which is an auction site. They rely on email notices for everything from password reminders to user communications to auction outbid/sale/win notices. But because my site is a NON-PROFIT and NON-COMMERCIAL site, I won't be able to reliably have my email delivered to THEIR users?
I might be missing something here, but doesn't that HARM THEIR EXISTING PAYING CUSTOMERS by making it difficult for them to use the internet services that are out there for them? - brbeaird, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Title is also completely inaccurate. They are not charging AOL customers - they are charging companies who send mass e-mails to AOL customers.
- Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31) The headline is wrong. They plan to charge SPAMMERS, not customers.
2) Cost will 1 cent (U.S.) for 4 emails. How many customers does AOL have now? 15 million? 20 million? Call it 15 million. To email all 15 million AOL customers, the spammers will have to pay $37,500 per mailing. Maybe a big company with a product you might actually want to buy would pay it. But the low-budget fly-by-nighters and scammers who clog our email won't pay it. - lildude3077, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Read the Article, people...
It's just saying that companies that want to make sure that their email is recieved can pay to ensure their mail's delivery.
You're not going to have to pay for your personal email. - dharh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2RTFA people. This only effects which emails AOL/Yahoo users get in their inbox as apposed to junk folder. People running sites and sends mass emails already get caught in AOL/Yahoo junk filters most of the time, so you don't cough up the cash, you still don't get to the AOL/Yahoo user. Those willing to pay however will get through. Seems to me this is almost a non-issue, basically if your an AOL/Yahoo user you might get more spam.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This isn't such a bad thing. These companies are providing this service free to everyone, and there are ***** out there that are abusing the living hell out of it. I don't disagree with this move one bit. Free e-mail will still exist... it's not going anywhere. This is for companies and large businesses that need to ensure timely arrival of their e-mails.
I'm sure there is another way to go about it, and I'm sure this will prompt a better solution to come out of the woodworks. I just don't see what the huge ruckus is all about. - justdarick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2WOW. You people are complete idiots.
READ THE ***** ARTICLE.
You will never be charged for sending or receiving e-mail. Neither will anyone else. If a company chooses to ensure their e-mail is not caught by SPAM filters, they can pay a fee. This is not mandatory. It is an incredibly good idea.
I work for a company where we send only double opt-in e-mails. We do not SPAM at all, ever, never, not going to happen. But at the same time 10-15% of our e-mails are not received because of SPAM filters. I will be showing this on Monday and calling AOL and Yahoo! to get more information on prices and signing up immediately.
GOOD JOB AOL and YAHOO! - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow some Digg users are dumb. I wonder what percentage of Digg users actually read the ***** articles. I know it's only about 50% of the people commenting here, because half the people commenting think they are about to get charged for sending email.
OH, Gmail! Here I come! STFU. They aren't charging users for sending or receiving email, they are charging spammers for certain guarantees of delivery. Don't be shocked if Google and MS do the same thing, because it's not a terrible idea. - generalleoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This does not affect us users. We wont pay a god damn thing for sending or receiving email. The way I know this idea from at least 5 or 6 years ago is as follows.
X company that deals in bulk email pays Yahoo/AOL a small fee to permit their email to pass the spam filters should the target recipient (Us users) decide to approve email from this company. Any email delivered trough this method that is read by the end target (again us users) also gets paid a small fee for having read the mail.
The idea is that lagit bulk email company's for lagit company's would be willing to pay knowing they might sell a product or some service making up for it in the long run. It would also be company's that us as users would be more willing to trust and thus the negative image of "spam" will be lifted off these lagit company's.
The Russian ***** sending out tons of Viagra or porno spam is not likely to pay any kind of fee and thus Yahoos/AOLs spam filters will continue to block their crap.
You as a user will continue to be free to send and receive any other email totally free of charge as you do now. - lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ok little sheep, stop complaining and read the article. This is just allowing companies to pay money to insure that a message doesn't get blocked by spam filters. No one is going to charge you money to send an email. The only change is that certain "important" emails wont get blocked by your spam filter.
You can calm down and breath now. Or just get gmail. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The idea is that they do this so that spammers have to pay to send their mail.
This idea has been going around for a long damn time now. - RockTheWall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My issue is not with the fact that they're charging for email, but that they're charging for something that was previously free. This is a consistent trend across the corporate world. These companies, rather than evolve and find new revenue sources, simply try to find ways to get more money from what they already have. I can envision it now, the AOL TW board meeting.
"Alright, no one's leaving until we find a way to make some money."
"Why don't we position ourselves properly for the Web 2.0 movement and create web-based services and applications than generate ad revenue from targeted advertising?"
"No, too much work. I've got an idea. What do we give away already that we can start charging for?"
It's the same with the RIAA. These guys are dirtbags. Every single one of them. - antdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html?ex=1296795600&en=6efb03c8cbfac79e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss if you don't want to log in.
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Whatever, obviously they won't stop me from e-mailing my friends for free who use yahoo mail - if they did that, people would just leave the service. All they are doing is stopping questionable mail from showing up in the inbox without a small charge to stop people from sending out unnecesary emails to a lot of people (ie. spam).
The thing is, AOL and Yahoo, as I understand it, will not delete e-mails that aren't paid for - they just may increase the sensitivity of the spam filter or something. - j0dnet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@gab00n , if your using Firefox just get the bug me not extension. best extension i have.
- generalleoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I don't know if people have noticed from the article or some of the comments, but the article is about COMPANIES who send bulk emails to AOL and Yahoo users.
Marked as inaccurate."
They notice. But it seems hard for a digg user to miss out on a chance to gripe about something so they tend to ignore it.
Just like if a story is some anti Nintendo fanboy BS and all the comments prove it as so the Sony guys arn't going to pass up the chance to rip on some Nintendo guys so they will just ignore the posts. Or the other way around or any other fanboy prone company you can think of.
And not to mention the way a Democrat or a Republican would act given the same chance. - cadrass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1how ironic is it that you have to log in to read the linked message.
Can someone post a link to readily available site content. I'm as interested in signing up for NYT as i am in paying extra to send email.. no digg now.. maybe later. - wjglenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Uh, people saying to RTFA need to RTFA.
>They are not charging everyone to send emails.
>They are just offering companies ways to ensure
>that their SPAM gets into user's inboxes.
and
>Umm... that's what most people are actually complaining about. If my
>email provider is making money off of spam, then that does not give
>them incentive to actually prevent spam from reaching me
FTA: "The senders must promise to contact only people who have agreed to receive their messages, or risk being blocked entirely."
I read this as admitting that their spam filters had blocked out a bunch of messages from legitimate companies to people requesting messages from those companies. Instead of ponying up to improve their spam filters or helping people create whitelists, they've come up with this scheme and think they can make a bit of $$ from it in the meantime. - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"They are not charging everyone to send emails. They are just offering companies ways to ensure that their SPAM gets into user's inboxes. Jesus christ, it's not like it's the end of the world!!!!"
Umm... that's what most people are actually complaining about. If my email provider is making money off of spam, then that does not give them incentive to actually prevent spam from reaching me, in which case I will find a new email provider.
It's not the end of the world, but it will be the end of me using any service implementing this methodology. - kiddailey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For crying out loud. How many web sites is this going to posted on incorrectly? It mades the rounds on Slashdot two days ago where a majority of people didn't read the article and/or don't know how AOL e-mail works:
"Judging from the rash of response, I can see that a good portion of people here either do not have AOL accounts or do not know how HTML mail works in AOL.
Currently, if you receive a HTML e-mail in the AOL client, any links or images in the message are not displayed. Instead, only the text of the e-mail is displayed, and a "button" at the top of the message window allows the user to turn on images and links in the message.
What AOL is clearly implementing is a way for "validated" third-parties to pay to have their HTML e-mails sent to AOL users with images and links turned on without requiring the user to take action to see them.
That's it. Nothing more to see here. Please move along." - danlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Bill Gate's Book 'The Road Ahead' written 10 years ago predicted that it would come to this.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140260404/qid=1139113824/sr=1-6/002-4399996-5856024?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 - darkhorsedark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i would be willing to pay up to 20 cents per email, but i would have to be able to send email larger than 4 gig per email, and it would have to be transfered in no longer than 5 minutes. Bascilly i am saying that if we have to pay for every email we send, it would have to transfer at lightening speed and we would have to have unlimited transfer bytes which would mean that isp's would have to upgrade their servies like crazy and the email would have to be guarteed to reach the recipient or money back guarentee. Can companies do this... Good luck.
- GodPants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They suck - So they rail against Spam and they promote their Spam blocking software but are now going to allow the Spam as long as the spammer is willing to pay to bother us.
This is why AOL sux and yahoo has obviously fallen to the Dark Side. - StatiK69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Talk about a stupid post! It's nice to see the person posting read the article at all; here's an idea, go back to school and learn reading comprehension again because obviously you failed. You don't get charged by AOL or Yahoo to send emails. Damn people, I can't stress this enough, read the full article!
- curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0for those who wanted to read the original story, find the google cache version of the page or archive.org's version of it, or search through the site for it, they could have merely changed the url name!
And this concept is an old one, the initial intent was to stop spammers by charging .5 cent for ever sent e-mail, bill gates wanted to enforce this, but it never went through no one would stand for it - thejohnomalley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You should check out http://www.vqme.com
They stop all spam and if somebody wants to push their spam off if you do not want it, the company fines the spammer. They also include a SMTP server that is not ISP dependent. - firehydra2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmm, there is some advantageous logic and crappy logic in this contraversy.
Sure, it will cut down on the SPAM. Now no idiot can mass send ***** to a bunch of people without paying up for "free advertisement."
However, this part irks me:
"AOL and Yahoo will still accept e-mail from senders who have not paid, but the paid messages will be given special treatment. On AOL, for example, they will go straight to users' main mailboxes, and will not have to pass the gantlet of spam filters that could divert them to a junk-mail folder or strip them of images and Web links. As is the case now, mail arriving from addresses that users have added to their AOL address books will not be treated as spam."
I DON'T want to ***** have Spam in my inbox. I like the spam blocker software Yahoo! has, and if they're degrading themselves so that they can earn money, then I will dump my long-used Yahoo! account and make my gmail account the official.
I'd like to see how this one will go... - cavicster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think that this will alienate AOL and Yahoo which will cause their customers to get a different email account. I never receive spam at my GMail account. AOL and Yahoo need to figure out how Google is blocking spam so effectively.
- Penmaton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Another money scheme... If big brother has a way to gain money, they will pass it.
- sanmarcos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In the end, if you want to send an email, you will have to pay.
It will end up just like regular mail. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"This just in: AOL loses more customers."
This just in: Digg User found that can differentiate between Lose and Loose. Bunch of stupid people cant figure out that Lose and Loose are not the same word. - firehydra2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Umm, wow.
READ THE ARTICLE DAMN IT.
They are not charging everyone to send emails. They are just offering companies ways to ensure that their SPAM gets into user's inboxes. Jesus christ, it's not like it's the end of the world!!!! - bryan8m, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If I had to pay money to ensure Yahoo and AOL e-mail users would receive my message, sending them mail would sound a lot less attractive.
- kucing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0BAN AOL FROM THE FACE OF THIS EARTH!!!!!!!!!
I just got charged $180 from cancelling my membership.
Tried to protest, and got the worse Indian customer service rep ever. - b-dizzle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0looks like it's time for me to switch to Gmail. Too bad, the beta of the next Yahoo Mail looked pretty slick.
- crazypenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It just sucks to get transferred to some dumb ass log in screen.
It might have been a good story if I could read it without having to sign up and log in.
No Digg - goodman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0More reasons to keep my lovely gmail
- kalphegor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0THIS IS ILLEGAL PAID SPAM!!! or a way to make spam "legal"
"Bonded Sender charges a flat fee of no more than $20,000 a year to the highest-volume senders, a fraction of what they would pay through the Goodmail system. Mr. Moog said that the Goodmail system would at least double the cost of an e-mail campaign."
After they will make this system available and I receive a single mail from one of them spam paid companies campaigns, I WILL SUE THEM ALL. This isn't a joke, spam is junk, paid or not, legal or not, I don't want it!
SPAM(spăm) n. Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I only get a couple spam emails a week and i keep the spam filter off. I'll stick with yahoo.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If eryone had to pay...like five or ten cents per e-mail...you'd see how fast the spammers woyld stop all their *****!
fsck spammers! let's shut them down. Most of us can afford 5cents per e-mail. For those who can't, we can have financial aid.
But not for the goddamn spammer bastards!
If you want financial aid, you have to register, so we know you are not spammers.
Maybe Google can sponsor this, or AOL, or some other corporations.......a good PR move! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, because putting unremovable ads in Yahoo's mail isn't cutting it for them. Now I'm going to have to PAY to send their advertisements for them.
How ***** rediculous. - KAMI_no_kodomo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"hahaha. So they stop spam, but only if they dont cough up cash...."
Yes same as i'm thinking. I think the real message of this text is: "spammers, pay us a little and we make sure youre spam is delivered"
This is the worst thing I ever saw and i'm realy happy i'm not a AOL user and not a Yahoo user. - timberfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wish people wouldn't post articles that you must be a member of said site in order to read. That's kind of pointless.
- Greenline, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I want to start a website called www.youdontneedaol.com
Too many people (including my parents) are convinced that AOL is the internet.
This article, whether true or not, is just another example of that. While I like the idea that it gets rid of potential spam, the AOL is out of control. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You guys really want something like this for your own?
This was the original release:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/3/prweb61458.htm
This workspace on gotdotnet.com contained the code:
"~ Brainclone.com Projects ~"
http://www.gotdotnet.com/Workspaces/Workspace.aspx?id=f73f5421-8896-48c9-a43c-0dc59dbea675
This was done in 2003, and code was available... except back then it used Paypal to have folks pay the 'reciever' of the email.
have fun
-H - firehydra2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0umm, what's the purpose of that, plm? SPAM is SPAM. We don't want our real emails going in there...
-
Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is