[14151] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: NEtscape 6.1
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Kessler)
Fri Oct 19 19:01:08 2001
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:43:41 -0700
From: Jack Kessler <kessler@WELL.COM>
In-reply-to: <62375239385.20011012181252@riverofdata.com>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-to: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
Message-id: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0110150905210.26865-100000@well.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Dan Lester and others replied to my question about unsolicited
online ads, by suggesting inter alia filters. I had asked,
> Can anyone tell me whether Netscape 6.1 produces a slew of
> online ads, any better or worse than those produced by IE
> 6.0, and how best / easiest to turn these off in both?
and Dan said,
> The browser doesn't "produce ads". The browser just displays
> the ads that are sent to it.
Well, I've noticed a considerable increase in ads since I (just)
upgraded to IE 6.0, from 5.0. My question I suppose is not so
much whether browsers generally "produce ads", but whether Msft
somehow could have tweaked this particular browser release to do
so -- maybe by pointing to it from a Msft server site somewhere?
I am not sure how this might be done, myself, but I can imagine
it occurring -- nice Msft income stream from the ads involved --
perhaps something to do with cookies automatically installed
during the browser installation, maybe, or even some generic IE
6.0 URL installed at which the ads might be aimed? Possible?
I would like to have confidence in recommending IE 6.0 to others
but I don't, at the moment, due to my suspicions about this
quantum online ad quantity jump. I haven't changed ISPs during
this -- controlled experiment -- only change has been to IE 6.0.
> The ads are sent by the web server.
Even if so, another possibility / question: do the ISPs & WSPs
ever sell -- yes, that's right, _sell_ -- their email address
lists to commercial vendors? Anybody know / have a feeling?
I feel naive in asking this: in commercial sales & mail order the
answer would be "of course" -- those "Sweepstakes" outfits make
_all_ their money from selling their mailing lists -- even
newspapers don't make money from "subscribers", any more...
My own quicktest with a number of friends, using different
commercial ISPs, finds remarkable differences in unsolicited
junkmail volumes to email accounts: some generate little / none,
-- others generate enormous amounts, and those amounts remarkably
increased this year. A couple of these friends are really active
online, and visibility does generate sales prospecting I know --
but a couple of the others are really dormant / lurking / hidden,
and even they have seen a quantum quantity jump very recently.
This year _has_ been a tough one for some commercial ISPs. And of
course _all_ ISPs have firm no - sell policies on their user
lists, officially...
> If the ads are included the pages,
Looks like a line here got omitted or garbled in transmission or
something, Dan -- please resend?
> there are a number of products available as shareware or
> freeware from any of the regular software download sites.
> Many of these will also block the ads that appear as spawned
> windows on sites that do this.
Anything same / similar for email? The filter for pine requires a
string / pattern which then gets blocked: trouble is, the senders
know this and slightly alter the origin address on each send so
that filters never can keep up, with wildcards or otherwise.
viz.: one unsolicited junkmail list which I currently am worrying
over includes sender addresses as follows --
C61342@excite.com
iluvpie@eszett.de
hats46@123india.co
<
DotInfoCentral.com
mortloan6275@posti
Multex Investor
bocapins2k@yahoo.c
Centennial
absyd@pacbell.net
Lori
bocapins2k@yahoo.c
mathew_green3237@y
sxvc@msn.com
Benny210@hotmail.c
tammijasso@123indi
jungle456@hotmail.
Debt Relief
The Motley Fool
-- now where to begin on these? Mixed bag. You don't want to
block everything from "msn.com" or "yahoo.com"; "The Motley Fool"
just might send you something useful, someday; "<" may block too
much (as would "sex", etc.); "Debt Relief" next time will be
called "Get out of Debt"; "Lori" next time will be "Suzy"...
And isn't there a similar problem for Web ads? How could popup
blocking software identify the originating address, without just
blocking all popups? If the address is a string, couldn't a
simple routine at the sending end just alter the sender address a
little each time, as with email? Can we block only an entire
popup / bannerad / flash / java / etc. "technique"?
> Many can also be blocked by turning off javascript or images
> in the browser setup. Of course this may also keep you from
> seeing or doing useful or required things as well. For a
> start, checkout http://www.adsubtract.com/,
Yes -- Problem #1 with all of this -- swatting flies with
bazookas. Even AdAbstract Pro appears to have this problem: you
get all popups or you get none -- at least if they take away your
popups these particular guys will let you continue to play with
bannerads. They help with email clients too -- although not with
shell - based email, unfortunately, where you just have pine.
That is one major difficulty with this technology which never was
designed, at least originally, for commercial application: those
ARPA / DARPA engineers and soldiers never figured on hatemail,
digital camera ads, pornography...
> but like content filters or other tools, nothing will block
> all of the things you want blocked, and there is always a
> risk of getting things blocked that you wished you had seen.
This one is Problem #2, I guess -- "all or nothing".
Problem #2 poses less of a difficulty for me than Problem #1
does, though: I'd rather block "most" than "too much".
The "information overload" / "censorship" balance is about to
become a whole lot more topical than it ever has been before, I
think & fear, thanks to WTC and anthrax and so on. So I would be
grateful for further answers and more general input, on these
filters and on the current state of censorship techniques.
I used to worry only about kids' exposure, post - Columbine. But
now I am becoming worried, increasingly, about my own: the inbox
does runneth over worse than ever before -- and now, thanks to
anthrax etc., efforts by the "Everything Has Changed" crowd to
deal with what they see as overload may, once again, throw out
the information baby with the bathwater. Time to get up to speed,
one mo' time, before the new round of restrictions hits.
Jack, kessler@well.sf.ca.us
