[14153] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: NEtscape 6.1
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Lester)
Fri Oct 19 19:05:33 2001
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:04:18 -0600
From: Dan Lester <dan@RIVEROFDATA.COM>
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0110150905210.26865-100000@well.com>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-to: Dan Lester <dan@RIVEROFDATA.COM>
Message-id: <71893082775.20011018180418@riverofdata.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thursday, October 18, 2001, 4:43:41 PM, you wrote:
JK> and Dan said,
>> The browser doesn't "produce ads". The browser just displays
>> the ads that are sent to it.
JK> Well, I've noticed a considerable increase in ads since I (just)
JK> upgraded to IE 6.0, from 5.0. My question I suppose is not so
JK> much whether browsers generally "produce ads", but whether Msft
JK> somehow could have tweaked this particular browser release to do
JK> so -- maybe by pointing to it from a Msft server site somewhere?
I'm still not convinced of any causality there. It may be that some
of the ads use features that aren't present in IE5.0 but are in IE6.0.
It is common to notice such differences between Netscape and IE, as
each supports different sets of HTML tags/code/options.
JK> I am not sure how this might be done, myself, but I can imagine
JK> it occurring -- nice Msft income stream from the ads involved --
JK> perhaps something to do with cookies automatically installed
JK> during the browser installation, maybe, or even some generic IE
JK> 6.0 URL installed at which the ads might be aimed? Possible?
Possible, sure. I don't think it is likely, though. Guess one could
install IE6 fresh on a machine and see what cookies and such are
dropped in there on install. I don't plan to do so, but would be
interested in the results of others who might.
>> The ads are sent by the web server.
JK> Even if so, another possibility / question: do the ISPs & WSPs
JK> ever sell -- yes, that's right, _sell_ -- their email address
JK> lists to commercial vendors? Anybody know / have a feeling?
I'm sure some do. If you read the privacy policies of them you'll see
widely different policies, sometimes with the gotchas buried in
legalistic terms. And that assumes they abide by the policies. And
another option. A techie at some ISP agrees to leave a backdoor open,
or to send a copy of the list, to a buddy. Just make an extra backup
tape, zipdisk, or whatever. A fistfull of greenbacks would convince
many an operator. At a big ISP that would be cheaper than buying a
list, and it would include all live accounts.
JK> My own quicktest with a number of friends, using different
JK> commercial ISPs, finds remarkable differences in unsolicited
JK> junkmail volumes to email accounts: some generate little / none,
JK> -- others generate enormous amounts, and those amounts remarkably
JK> increased this year.
You may have confirmed our beliefs above. Or not. It would take much
more evidence before I'd be convinced completely. The sample you have
is much too small.
JK> A couple of these friends are really active
JK> online, and visibility does generate sales prospecting I know --
JK> but a couple of the others are really dormant / lurking / hidden,
JK> and even they have seen a quantum quantity jump very recently.
It also depends greatly on WHERE these people are visible. List
visibility isn't nearly as significant as newsgroup visibility. Plus,
many lists protect their archives, restricting them to members only,
and forbidding even members to get a list of all members.
>> If the ads are included the pages,
JK> Looks like a line here got omitted or garbled in transmission or
JK> 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.
I don't think anything is missing. There are products that will block
ads in pages, or spawned ads. Don't know why the quoted line is
short. Many of these work, at least in part, by blocking
pages/graphics from the relatively small number of domains that are
major ad hosting services. I could pick out the top ten easily from our
proxy server logs.
JK> Anything same / similar for email?
Here's one. Check tucows.com for many more.
http://cci-29palms.tucows.com/preview/194121.html It says
"Email Control allows you to set up multiple e-mail filters.
It also allows you to identify the domain ownership of any spammer.
Email Control even allows you to access your POP3 mail accounts.
It is extremely easy to use, and it's a necessity if you are
worried about excess junk mail."
NOTE: I've NOT tried this one. It is simply the first likely
prospect from a search of "filter" on tucows.
JK> The filter for pine requires a
JK> string / pattern which then gets blocked: trouble is, the senders
JK> know this and slightly alter the origin address on each send so
JK> that filters never can keep up, with wildcards or otherwise.
There are plenty of those. And we know the problem with word filters.
As George Carlin said over thirty years ago on this topic "it's ok to
prick my finger, but not to finger my prick".
JK> And isn't there a similar problem for Web ads? How could popup
JK> blocking software identify the originating address, without just
JK> blocking all popups?
As noted above, most come from a small number of providers. I don't
know all their techniques, but I have several colleagues who swear by
them. I'd rather delete my own junk. But many commercial websites
look much different without the borders of ads.
JK> If the address is a string, couldn't a
JK> simple routine at the sending end just alter the sender address a
JK> little each time, as with email? Can we block only an entire
JK> popup / bannerad / flash / java / etc. "technique"?
Sure, you can block all java, flash, etc. But there are times you
want or need them. Try doing any web searching with cookies turned
off. Or any business on the web. They're necessary. In fact, I
turned off javascripting in IE6 just for fun. I went to the MS site
and had to approve the running of eight scripts on the first page I
went to, in order to get all the frames to load, etc.
JK> Yes -- Problem #1 with all of this -- swatting flies with
JK> bazookas. Even AdAbstract Pro appears to have this problem: you
JK> get all popups or you get none -- at least if they take away your
JK> popups these particular guys will let you continue to play with
JK> bannerads. They help with email clients too -- although not with
JK> shell - based email, unfortunately, where you just have pine.
I must not be old enough or geeky enough. I can't imagine not having
pop3 or similar clients. Yes, I've used pine, and vi, and emacs, and
edit and other fun toys. But I'll never use them again if I can help
it.
JK> That is one major difficulty with this technology which never was
JK> designed, at least originally, for commercial application: those
JK> ARPA / DARPA engineers and soldiers never figured on hatemail,
JK> digital camera ads, pornography...
Oh, they understood porn. They passed it around. Of course they
ftp'ed it to each others accounts on U**x boxes, but they had it, in
full, living 256 color gif glory.
JK> The "information overload" / "censorship" balance is about to
JK> become a whole lot more topical than it ever has been before, I
JK> think & fear, thanks to WTC and anthrax and so on. So I would be
JK> grateful for further answers and more general input, on these
JK> filters and on the current state of censorship techniques.
Yup, it will be difficult. And if the FBI/CIA/Secret Police/Guys with
Black Helicopters or any others really have the ability to detect any
emails or phone calls that use "president" and "kill" and other such
words in the same sentence, I guess I'm on my way to jail.
JK> I used to worry only about kids' exposure, post - Columbine. But
JK> now I am becoming worried, increasingly, about my own: the inbox
JK> does runneth over worse than ever before -- and now, thanks to
JK> anthrax etc., efforts by the "Everything Has Changed" crowd to
JK> deal with what they see as overload may, once again, throw out
JK> the information baby with the bathwater. Time to get up to speed,
JK> one mo' time, before the new round of restrictions hits.
Remember, the police agencies have the same problems with filtering
that we do. Whether you're trying to stop information, or get it out,
it is still a case of "information wants to be free". I use that
expression NOT in the economic terms it usually used for, but in the
terms of freedom, lack of fetters or restrictions, etc.
Here's my big test of the system that some of the paranoid would claim
is in place. If my cell phone number listed below is never answered
again, you'll know it is because they came and got me:
"I think we should kill some bad guys before the president has dinner
tonight".
"It is too bad the president had to kill his old, sick dog."
"If the president was dying of cancer, he might kill himself"
There we go, three goofy tests, representative of nothing but my
imagination, and nothing that I do or don't believe in. Besides, I
didn't say the president of what? Maybe the Idaho Library
Association....
Hope the clues help, because there aren't any definitive answers.
cheers
dan
--
Dan Lester, Data Wrangler dan@RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho 83716-7115 USA
www.riverofdata.com www.gailndan.com Stop Global Whining!
