RE: How is SPF different from RMX?

[Dean Anderson <dean@xxxxxxx>]

I didn't know Wallace said that. If he did say it, he was right, at least
about that. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.  But it has been
reported and discussed elsewhere that AOL does advertising to its users. I
don't think that is too surprising, and it has certainly been discussed
many times on many forums since 1997.  So does MSN, as reported by the MSN
anti-spam technical staff at the spam conference held at MIT. The MSN
people said that the biggest complaint they got was that their filters
were blocking the internal spamming.

		--Dean



On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Gordon Fecyk wrote:

> 
> > My only gripe about AOL (as some may know) is that AOL is not against
> > spam, but only against spam that doesn't pay it advertising fees to
> > communicate to its users.
> 
> I understand that a lot of us have short term memories[1], so this may come
> as a shock.
> 
> The only other person I have ever heard this type of comment from was Sanford
> Wallace back in his Cyberpromo days.  "He accused America Online of getting
> Sprint to act, because Cyber Promotion was AOL's competitor for advertising
> dollars."
> 
> http://www.computerbits.com/archive/1997/0100/surf9701.html
> 
> A comment like this doesn't sound much different from old "spamford."
> 
> [1] Yet another parallel with the anti-virus industry.
> 
>