Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
America Online

Journal: AOL harvesting email addresses from users' correspondence? 1

Journal by shimmin
So a couple days ago, a friend of mine started getting spam from matchmaker.com on what had previously been a pristine email account. Then, a few minutes later, they got some of the same spam on what they thought was an even more pristine account. Which brought up the question of who might have put their address into the system, or more pertinently, who might have put BOTH addresses into the system. (The appearance of both is important here.)

So she got to thinking, what had she done with the account lately. Well, with the super-pristine one, the answer was absolutely nothing, because it's just an alias she uses for forwarding email to a real account whose identity might change with the shifting winds of employment, etc. Which confuses the matter more. But, she did remember sending an email to an AOL user from the real account that contained a line along the lines of "You can send me email at [alias address]."

So, the question is, did AOL harvest both addresses from the header and body of this email, repsectively, and sell them as spam fodder?

What I'm going to do is set up a few pristine email accounts and sent some email from them to AOL, hotmail, yahoo, and a few others, and see if any of them start getting spammed as a result. Anyone wanting to do the same and share their results here is welcome. This could be educational.

User Journal

Journal: Meditations on the smiley :) 5

Journal by shimmin
So I've had reason to think recently about the use of the smiley in electronic text communication. I think the smiley could be a revolutionary thing, because it's possible that this is the first truly new act of punctuation in the English language in almost 200 years.

However, I'm a little bit uncertain whether the smiley is in fact punctuation. In some respect, it is meant to imply that the speaker is smiling, either to convey a sort of friendly insincerity in an otherwise insulting remark, e.g.

You are such a dork :)

or to express genuine joy, e.g.

Guess what! I got a job :)

In this interpretation, the smiley in supposed to convey the vocal inflections and facial expressions that accompany a smile, in much the same manner as the question mark conveys the vocal upturn at the end of a question.

However, it could also be said that the smiley is a word in and of itself, a new kind of word, one meant to express the nonverbal component of a sentence. This interpretation better fits the usage of the smiley by people who punctuate an already smiley-terminated sentence, e.g.

I'm sorry to say, your homebrew tastes like moutwash. Of course, I happen to like mouthwash :).

Are you going to remain such a dork forever :)?

Cleaning house (cleaning house being one of my favorite things to do :)) I found my favorite pair of socks. They'd been missing for months :)!

Personally, I frown on this usage, because often the smiley is indistinct from the sentence- terminating punctuation, especially in the case of parentheses. A good workaround in the case of the smiley-as-word is to put it after the closing punctuation, ala

Where in the world did you find that tie? :)

But I digress. Anyway, whether as a new act of punctuation or a new kind of word (a non-verbal word, pardon the paradox), the smiley is particularly interesting because of the rapidity in which it sprung into electronic communications. People have been writing in manuscript for centuries, and the rules of English punctuation have been mostly ossified for about 200 years, and yet nothing like the smiley ever came about. Yet the first smiley appeared on a bbs in 1982, only 11 years after the first email.

What about the new mode of communication fostered the birth of a symbol to convey the nonverbal part of a sentence. All text, whether electronic or manuscripted, suffers from the same inherent difficulty is providing subtextal context unless it is directly stated. Hence the existence of English majors. So why only with electronic media did people develop a symbol for indicating how their words should be interpreted?

One possibility is that the use of the friendly insult (at least in print) is a relatively new phenomenon, that when writers of times past gave their insults, they meant them, and so had no need of the smiley. Consider:

G.K. Chesterton: Oscar Wilde said sunsets were not valued because we could not pay for them. But Oscar Wilde was wrong; we can pay for sunsets. We can pay for them by not being Oscar Wilde. :)

Somehow, the effect of the original text is lost.

Another possibility is that the smiley is an enabling technology (similar to the hearing aid or the prosthetic limb) developed by those with an above-average difficulty with deciphering subtext for the purposes of facilitating communication between themselves. While this does further the stereotype of the emotionally-out-of-touch computer geek, let's face it, such stereotypes exist for a reason.

They say 90% of communication is nonverbal (they also say that 90% of statistics are made up on the spot, yet they do not identify who they are, anyway). It is my belief that the people most aware of this are _not_ those who are particularly good at decoding nonverbal cues, but those who are not. Such people come to the conclusion much faster than the rest of us that the actual text of most communication carries rather little of the communicative content, and that most of the conversational bandwidth is borne on its nonverbal components, and (sometimes) the fact that the conversation is taking place at all. It is actually a mark of close relationship to have a conversation based on the principle that, "Although I have nothing important to communicate to you, I am going to have a conversation with you anyway to show I care." It is those who have difficulty tapping into this nonverbal bandwidth who most quickly realize that the actual text of most human interaction is rather banal.

Hence, email itself was an important enabling technology because by eliminating the nonverbal bandwidth, it forces all content to be brought out of subtext and directly presented. Consider the case of courtship. When done in person, it is rather awkward to come right out and say, "I like you." When done over email, it's still rather awkward, but there is no other choice. (YMBAGI you have conducted the opening stages of a relationship via email. Score double if you knew exactly why you were conducting them via email.)

The smiley in this sense was merely a further refinement of the technology, allowing content that is in normal conversation expressed nonverbally because it is more suited to the nonverbal channels to be explicitly expressed in text without translation into a verbal form. In other words, either emotional punctuation or a non-verbal word, depending on your take.

The only problem with this scenario is that the people who are today enthusiastic computer users most likely have similar emotional makeup to the people who would have been literate in previous centuries when literacy was rather rare. If this is true, why then did scribes and scholars of these times not develop such a useful symbol for their own use in correspondence?

This goes doubly so since it seems the smiley may have had multiple independent inventions in the early days of the Internet. Although the western smiley :) has become the western form, one still occasionally sees the Asian smiley ^_^, especially in newsgroups and bulletin boards dealing with anime and similar topics. It seems unlikely that one of these two equivalent symbols derives from the other. Therefore, it seems that a symbol so useful that it was developed at least twice in the opening decade-or-so of electronic communications somehow completely avoided invention during centuries of manuscripting. How?

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. -- Nero Wolfe

Working...