The America Online Protocol Revealed 468
Gods Misfit writes "The America Online protocol(Connecting, Logging In, Joining Chats, etc..) has remained a mystery for most of its life. The only way one could log into their AOL account was via the AOL software. A few months ago, some people set out to break down the AOL protocol and open the door for alternative America Online software. This document is the result: The AOL Protocol.
A sign on example for Visual Basic programmers has been written and is available here." I suspect a fair number of people never try Linux or one of the BSDs because they're moderately happy with AOL as an ISP, and switching OSes would mean switching ISPs at the same time. A shame that AOL doesn't make this kind of information more easily available.
A Text File woudl be nice (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:A Text File woudl be nice (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.accs-net.com/hosts/theaolprotocol.ht
Re:A Text File woudl be nice (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A Text File woudl be nice (Score:2, Interesting)
Congratulations! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Congratulations! (Score:4, Interesting)
AOL cracks have been in existence for over 10 years now (way before AOL was even on the internet, or called AOL). As it turns out, AOL started with a lot of security through obscurity (they used to trust the client for a lot), and as a result, there were holes galore. One crack a couple years ago realized that you got internet access before you actually logged in, and for a while people were getting free internet access without signing up again every 30 (now 45) days (like those of us with a little more fear of jail time do).
In any case, yes, releasing the protocol might uncover some additional security through obscurity holes, but in the end they can always be plugged up, just as they have in the past.
Re:Congratulations! (Score:4, Insightful)
Illegal Activities? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Illegal Activities? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Illegal Activities? (Score:3, Interesting)
JOhn
Re:Illegal Activities? (Score:4, Funny)
You mean using Double Rot13 for an extra layer of security?
Re:Illegal Activities? (Score:2, Funny)
You mean using Double Rot13 for an extra layer of security?
You mean that doesn't work?
Re:Illegal Activities? (Score:4, Informative)
i liked timothy's comment that people who use aol may shy away from bsd or linux because they wouldn't want to switch isps. having seen the aol interface and met aol users, i doubt any aol user would honestly USE linux. at best a couple might try the install, but go back to using windows.
Re:Illegal Activities? (Score:2)
Re:Illegal Activities? (Score:5, Informative)
No. Reverse engineering algorithms protected only by copyright is always legal. DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent or reverse engineer copyright protection schemes. There is no evidence anything of the sort has been done.
No. (Score:2)
The DMCA makes breaking a copy protection mechanism illegal.. which this isn't.
Re:Illegal Activities? (Score:2)
If I understand correctly, this only applies when the encryption/obfuscation/kludgy protocol is being used to protect a copyrighted work. I could be wrong.
Re:Dear Mod: (Score:2)
The protocol may be protected by copyright, patent, or as a trade secret.
Reverse engineering of methods described in copyrighted material is legal.
Reverse engineering of trade secrets is legal.
Reverse engineering of patented inventions is illegal.
Bypassing copyright protection schemes through reverse engineering is illegal.
Reverse engineering protocols is similar to what the SAMBA team does already - of the NTFS team, or the VFAT team, or the HFS team etc...
People sticking with Windows because of AOL? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:People sticking with Windows because of AOL? (Score:2)
More than a handful.
I know people who actually use the words "I like AOL" all together in one sentence.
It's really a weird thing to witness.
Re:People sticking with Windows because of AOL? (Score:4, Funny)
Hey now, wait a minute!!! You're stepping on my toes, now. I use those words together in one sentence all the time:
"I would like to see AOL ripped into tiny pieces and thrown into the Seven Seas."
Re:People sticking with Windows because of AOL? (Score:2)
Cat and mouse games (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cat and mouse games (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cat and mouse games (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Cat and mouse games (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cat and mouse games (Score:3, Insightful)
If you've ever used AOL you'll realize while they probably won't "let it slide" AOL is much more than an ISP and the client is about 80% of that. Whether they take legal action depends on their lawyers, but it would be trivial for them to get around this technically. Since the AOL client automatically every time it connects they could simple change some small bit of the protocol every week (or day) that would break the non-AOL clients until someone patched them. AOL could probaly automate this fairly easily to the point that they could just do it forever or until the non-AOL folks just give up.
I imagine you'll see cease-and-desist letters followed by engineering changes, followed by lawsuits.
Re:Cat and mouse games (Score:2)
The difficulty is to change the protocol in a way that doesn't break their clients but does break all of the unauthorized clients.
They can't just force everyone to update overnight. Some people still use AOL 2.
One way that's been discussed here before is to alter the protocol to request a selected checksum of the executable. Now the only way you can answer this checksum query is to have an actual copy of the AOL client. This still does not make it impossible to implement an Open Source client.
Re:Cat and mouse games (Score:2)
Hmm, need a copy of the AOL client? I've got two copies here on my desk at work, my copy of the Godfather Trilogy is at home, ordered from Amazon, so there might be a disk in there, I might order from Tiger Computers in the next few days, so they'll send a disc, I saw one of the PC rags at the grocery store the other day with a disc, and I know I just threw away one of those that came unsolicited at home just last Saturday.
So, while I can't put up an ftp site with a copy of it, I'm sure there must be one or two people with an unwanted copy of the client.
Re:Cat and mouse games (Score:2)
Would using checksums of parts in RAM work across several clients? IOW, if they give data 'foo' to 20 clients, will the checksum always be 'bar' from each of the 20 clients? And how long would this last? Now that a certain baseline is established, aren't further changing merely incremental, and thus, easier to adapt to?
Re:Cat and mouse games (Score:2)
All they'd have to do is support the old protocol, but restrict people on the old protocol to performing updates to the newer patched version.
I Thought The Main Benefit Of AOL... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I Thought The Main Benefit Of AOL... (Score:2)
What would happen if a major OEM (Dell, Gateway, etc.) computer came bundled with Linux, StarOffice, and AOL on the desktop? This is in AOL's advantage. Although non-o-fish-al clients may not be.
This'll last... (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering AOL wasn't exactly thrilled with "Unauthorized" versions of their messaging software (Jabber [jabber.org]) I wonder how long it will take them to have a stroke over this.
AOL / Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not AOL that's keeping me from trying Linux on the desktop - it's that my fiancee needs to use the PC as well, and she has enough trouble with Windows... (okay, that and the games)
Re:AOL / Linux (Score:2)
[My fiancee] has enough trouble with Windows...
It's been my experience that if a user is so much a novice that they're tripping over their own feet in Windows, then you can swith them to KDE and they'll be no worse off.
That said, I completely sympathize about the games.
AOHell? (Score:2, Funny)
AOL on linux (Score:4, Funny)
Isn't that like having a red neck teach physic's at MIT?
Re:AOL on linux (Score:2, Funny)
No, it's the other way around (Score:2, Troll)
Well, that seals it (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I don't know why whenever something gets posted on /., the sentiment "Finally! Now the average user will use Linux!" has to be used. The simple fact is that the average user isn't savvy enough to use it, and there is a large group of users who ARE savvy enough to use it, but find setting it up to be a big headache.
America Online isn't going to be Linux's killer app.
(ducks behind asbestos wall)
Re:Well, that seals it (Score:3, Funny)
So AOL could be Linux's killer app... but it wouldn't be from Linuz hackers.
Re:Well, that seals it (Score:3, Interesting)
Buy a AOL/Gateway connected pad, it runs linux
AOL has been running on linux for months now by AOL's own design.
Yes, it was easier than a PC with windows and their client. Why did it die? who in their right mind would pay $399.99 for a webpad that only connected to AOL!
AOL Runs on Linux also. (Score:4, Insightful)
But I would go as far to say that the type of people who like computers very simple, and very task oriented wouldn't want to install Linux on their desktop for more than one reason.
1) maybe AOL
2) their computer likely came with windows and installing a new OS is beyond their skills
3) linux desktops are still not dumbed down enough. Come on, TiVo is easy to use, my playstation 2 is easy to use, why is my computer so hard?
Joseph Elwell.
Silly Rabbit! (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably very few people using AOL would consider playing with *nix. If you're playing with other operating systems, you've probably already outgrown AOL. You're not burning ISOs from Redhat that you downloaded via AOL/dialup. If you're on AOL, you're happy and content and most probably don't want to be switching ISPs or playing with a new OS. Besides, just because you're on a new OS, doesn't mean you have to get rid of your M$ partition and AOL as your dialup. People can explore the goodness of *nix on that old computer in the closet they feel bad about donating to the Salvation Army.
The AOL protocal was a nice reverse engineering hack. Nice work fellows. AOL didn't make it more freely available because it was a proprietary technology. They'd prefer to keep it to themselves or license it out.. otherwise they would have used a published standard.
=steve
Re:Silly Rabbit! (Score:4, Insightful)
Look:
There is nothing wrong with a cool hack, made by hackers, that is solely of interest to other hackers, and that maybe even impresses your hacker friends.
This is all Just For Fun, people... never lose sight of that!
Re:Silly Rabbit! (Score:5, Insightful)
# sync
# sync
#
If they could just click on a pretty AOL icon on the linux desktop, a lot of linux-users might drop their windows partition entirely.
it's all about advertising (Score:3, Redundant)
Re:it's all about advertising (Score:3, Informative)
More technical info (Score:2)
Why a shame? (Score:2, Insightful)
This reminds me of the same sort of complaint found in a recent Slashdot article on Microsoft [slashdot.org]. Do you really think AOL/Time Warner wants this type of information spread around so they can lose subscribers?
It's not a shame, it's good business sense.
They'll never allow OSS clients! (Score:2, Insightful)
Why?
WHen you use their client, they control eveything you see. What you can do. Think - they could force commercials or ads down yoru throat (and they will). If its opened up, you know people will just chose not to accept them.
The protocol will change very soon. :)
Not a big user group overlap.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it, the reason that AOL and Linux don't mesh isn't because there's no AOL-Linux interface. It's because people who use AOL use it for a reason - it's got a happy, friendly, push big rainbow colored buttons, don't-cut-yourself safety-scissors interface. Love 'em or hate 'em, it's what they do well - an interface so simple that even grandma can use the demon box.
Linux is still, even in its most user-friendly form, a system that requires you to get some dirt under your fingernails while you use it. It's still a power-user OS.
There just simply isn't a big overlap between the types of people who use AOL and the types of people who traditionally run Linux.
Re:Not a big user group overlap.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything you say is true (I did't quote your entire post, but I mostly agree with all of it). There is one point you and many others overlook: @Home is bankrupt. What will thousands of Linux users do when their always-on, high-speed ISP goes away and is replaced by AOL? Switch to Windows? Perhaps so, either that or go back to a dial-up ISP. If I were faced with that choice, I'd prefer to figure out how to make AOL work with Linux. Or rather, figure out how to make Linux work with AOL. There may not be much overlap between Linux users and AOL subscribers now, but in the near future there may well be quite a bit of overlap as the "types who traditionally run Linux" are given few alternatives.
Unless you think it might be easer to get MSN to play with Linux.
Making it available means lost revenue (Score:5, Interesting)
But in the end the bottom line is profit. You don't want to allow people to get onto the internet where you can't 100% control what the first thing they see is. AOL gives the illusion to first time joe averages that it IS the internet. My mom spent months on AOL without even using the actual internet and she thought she was on the internet. It's marketing genius. You control their access, you control the way content is shown, you give them places to spend their money and control the ways they communicate. Everyone does it the same way, so everyone is having a similar version of their own experience...
The AOL designers aren't dumb IMHO, sure it's not the service that I want as my ISP, but when it comes to marketing, they know what their doing...
For awhile they were going to make it so you could use them as a 'traditional' isp using Dial-up, but I don't think that anything really ever came of it.... I guess AOL users just like hearing 'WELCOME, YOU'VE GOT SPAM, (I MEAN MAIL)...'
Re:Making it available means lost revenue (Score:2, Informative)
So you are correct about it's own version of http, but they do display content in a 'modified' version of HTML too. If I remember properly they use a little bit of Java Script, and some of the code that distributes content is PERL....
:)
This will not get AOLer to Switch OS's (Score:5, Interesting)
They fear that the change they make will kill their expensive toy and force them to go talk to a more computer literate friend who will once again berate them for using the most expensive ISP with the worst service.
I suspect that this doocument will be the source from which nasty new AOL hacks will be based. And now that it is out it is in very immature hands.What this will do. (maybe) is covered by point 8
Not that it matters to me because I don't use AOL
Re:This will not get AOLer to Switch OS's (Score:3, Interesting)
What it will allow is for people who are using AOL to switch operating systems if they want to. There's a subtle distinction between allowing the change and causing it.
Gaim (Score:2, Informative)
Sweet! Oh wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Other than hacking into AOL for the fun of it, this is pretty useless. It's a good blow for the cause of open protocols and file formats.
I suppose there might be a market for a simple AOL client, for those who use it for portable internet access.
Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I think we should declare a war against VB programmers after the war on terrorism is over.
Re:Finally! (Score:2, Funny)
AOL DSL (Score:2, Interesting)
Why does my sister use AOL DSL...? I dunno. But she's an air traffic controller in the US Navy so I will forgive her for now.
What about mail? (Score:5, Interesting)
Back around 1996 or so, I was part of an AOL beta program that released a MAPI interface for AOL mail servers. IE, you could add the AOL mail server to your Outlook config and download your AOL mail right into Outlook.
Of course, the AOL exec freaked out when they considered how many eyeballs their advertisers would lose if everyone uninstalled the AOL client and kept their mail via Outlook. So the program was canned, and I was unfortunately too short-sighted to save a copy of that MAPI tool before the area was closed down.
Ever since, I've been trying to get my sister/parents/grandparents off AOL. Not to mention that AOL never supported Windows NT because they couldn't figure out how to install their stupid AOL Adapter TCP shunt thing. So for years my relatives were forced to run a crappy 16-bit (Win 3.11) version of the AOL client for the sole purpose of checking e-mail.
AOL's mail service is terrible but a lot of people don't want to change their e-mail addresses. If you really want to do a great services to help newbies move beyond their AOL shackles...please, I implore you:
A) Reverse engineer the AOL mail protocol so that external programs can at least READ AOL mail (sending, unsending, and AOL custom features are optional)
B) Reverse engineer the AOL mail database (local copy of stored mail) so that it can be imported into another program.
Even after I got a couple family members to switch over to Hotmail, they still have to use the AOL client to read their old mail. It's that or save it all as flat text and lose all the important header information.
Also, a bonus to reverse engineering the AOL mail database would be the ability to sync mail with your Palm. The AOL client for Palm is 400KB and can only dial-up, not sync.
Please post reply if you know of any project working on the AOL mail/database formats. Thank you!
- JoeShmoe
There *is* an AOL mail workaround... (Score:3, Informative)
Excellent! (Score:2)
http://www.enetbot.com/ for those also curious.
Pity it's $20 shareware, but this is very good. That takes care of request A from my post...now can any clever soul provide a solution for converting/importing previous mail?
- JoeShmoe
Re: (Score:3, Troll)
Re:Excellent! (Score:3, Insightful)
Because I'm trading one piece of proprietary software for another. Let's say AOL does something to break eNetBot (like they did to MSN Messenger several times)...well I will be SOL if eNetBot Inc. can't fix it in a timely fashion.
Contrary to what you may think, I don't have a problem with someone making money off this piece of software. But can't I still be allowed to lament the fact that the underlying information isn't available? Compare this eNetBot thing to what the original article was about.
Original article is a document explaining how the AOL protocol is formatted, as well as some basic functions to demonstrate usage. Five out of five stars. eNetBot doesn't explain anything but offers me an alternative to the piggish AOL client for e-mail. Nice, but still only four out of five stars. Thus, my pity comment.
I'd much prefer a website that went something like "here's how to write your own interface to access your AOL Mail via the website...oh by way if you're interested I've already written one and you can have it for $X".
- JoeShmoe
Re:What about mail? (Score:5, Informative)
It's just a set of IMAP servers. There's no secret about it. If you use Netscape 6.x, it gives you the option to set up an account to retrieve your AOL mail, and it does this by setting you up to do it via IMAP.
imap.mail.aol.com
(Yes, I'm an AOL employee)
There is one more client out there (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, I can see why AOL doesn't want people doing this - I used this mainly as a tool for migrating to POP3! I would check AOL email once in a while, and whenever there was anything other than spam (rare) I would reply to it from my POP3 account.
Re:What about mail? (Score:4, Insightful)
AOL 5 runs fine on NT 4.0. AOL doesn't support it, but it works. The last time I called their tech support (last Spring,) they said they'd have a specific NT client out by now. I haven't seen it and don't know that the world really needs it since AOL 5 works fine. I also bitched about the lack of a Linux client and the support person told me that they thought one was going to be released, but I haven't seen that, either. I figure it's either vaporware or someone changed their mind.
AOL's mail service is terrible but a lot of people don't want to change their e-mail addresses.
AOL is also one of the few IPs who allow multiple users per account (although only one can be signed on at a time.) With five people in my house (all of whom have e-mail accounts,) I'd pay $100 per month for separate unlimited access accounts for everyone. With AOL, it's just $23 per month. Pure economics. Another reason for AOL accounts is their great worldwide POP network. We keep several AOL accounts for traveling salespeople and executives because we know they can find a local POP to dial into from just about anywhere they happen to be: London, Munich, Mexico City, and almost anywhere in the US. It beats the heck out of paying ruinous hotel long distance charges, or the '800' AOL line surcharge. And really beats the crap out of talking a marketing manager through whatever weird TCP/IP setup a local provider in Back Woods, Ontario needs for a local ISP connection over the phone on Sunday evening.
Finally, you no longer need the AOL mail client to send/receive AOL e-mail, you can use practically any web browser. Just point to www.aol.com and sign in to your AOL account, then click the mail icon. Presto, you're there. It's all web-r-ized. Webbified. Whatever.
Why do you think that is? (Score:4, Interesting)
A large amount of AOL's income is from advertisements. You're bombarded by them from the second you sign on, in every window you open, till you sign off. Salon might have adopted the mandatory ad viewing my friend, but they didn't invent it. AOL has been using these for years. Subscribers are forced to view several ads of "special offers" before they can even begin to navigate through the "service." It's like playing Where's Waldo trying to find the Close button on some of these windows. AOL doesn't want third parties designing software to be used on their networks because it would be detrimental to their advertising income. Fewer members using their software translates into fewer eyes viewing their ads, which reduces the value of their ad space. It's a safe bet that AOL will do everything in its power to ensure that people continue to use its software.
Re:Why do you think that is? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually this is misinformation. There is a preference setting in AOL to allow you to turn off the Pop-Up ads. It's accesible from the preferences section of AOL, they just don't tell you about it. And why should they? AOL DOES make a lot of it's money from advertising.
The AOL experience is not all ads. I would venture to say it is about equal to surfing the Web the amount of ads per screen space encountered. If it were, 32 million people would not love to use it.
AOL doesn't want third parties designing software to be used on their networks because it would be detrimental to their advertising income. Fewer members using their software translates into fewer eyes viewing their ads, which reduces the value of their ad space. It's a safe bet that AOL will do everything in its power to ensure that people continue to use its software.
Agreed.
So fix it... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, if the problem is "we can't use AOL from Linux, etc", then why don't they fix it? What's really stopping them from putting together a cross-platform Java (heck, or even C-based) GUI? That way, at least no one has an excuse to work around them.
I do think they'll be forced to stomp on anyone producing other implementations of their client. Long-term though, it's not a battle they can win (especially if Linux does start getting used more by average/non-technical users).
AOL has one good feature (Score:4, Insightful)
Even now, most ISPs will give you a couple of POP mailboxes for $15-$20/month, but few if any provide the ease and convenience of creating new "screen names" that AOL provides. Try telling a 12-16 year old girl that she can't change her screen name to avoid some pre-pubescent geek who's harrasing her via email.
Here's the simplified version: (Score:5, Funny)
void AOL()
{
while(connected)
{
send_advertisements();
monitor_browsing_habits();
monthly_fee++;
if(bandwith_to_spare)
send_internet_data();
}
return;
}
Re:Here's the simplified version: (Score:2, Funny)
This doesnt solve the problem . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Some old coverage of this [zdnet.com] can be found at ZD. Theyve got a whole site called "InstantMess" that talks about how AOL refuses to discuss an open format because they want to lock users into their app.
Recently Trillian (www.trillian.cc) [trillian.cc] has succesfully done it. I think they got around it by using whatever method the JAVA aol clients (AIM express, Quickbuddy) [aol.com].
Id love to see an open standard, but without AOL on board its useless. Its sad really - that the unwashed masses are dictating the standard for the rest of us.
ROck On (Score:5, Funny)
The only thing about AOL that's worth anything are the chatrooms. Unlike IRC, you can actually meet real, low-self-esteemed, fat chicks who'll put out for anyone willing to pretend to listen to them whine about how no one likes them.
I'd better stock up on condoms and twinkies, big dog is gettin' let out of the house...
This is gonna rock. (Score:5, Funny)
(456)123-4567 is an AOLnet dialin. Numbers mutilated to protect the guilty, of course. A few years and many many area code splits ago, we were all one code. More than a few lusers are confused by Windows' concept of "dialing location" and area code settings, and apparently more than a few of them are AOLers.
I get silent phone calls all the time, sometimes several in a row. Without fail, if I answer with a carrier, they connect.
Sometimes if I send "login:" they talk back. I've never bothered to get farther than that.
I've long dreamed of hacking up a barebones AOL emulator, just enough to push them a page that says "You dumbass, your area code settings are fux0red!" and then play some fart noises before dropping them.
Yeah, this is gonna rock. Not only do I get to fuck with their heads, but I get a free supply of AOL l:/p: pairs delivered to my desktop! Never know when those might come in handy.
Re:This is gonna rock. (Score:5, Interesting)
I also wonder about the legality of such a practice. The users are placing the call, right? I guess it depends on how different AOL's login procedure is from something standard. "No, Your Honor, that was my personal login so I could access my computer from my friend's house." Compare to the tone-detector that lets you use a redbox to turn appliances on and off.
Linux and AOL can fit. (Score:4, Interesting)
1. There are many kids out there who want to learn Linux and are allowed to setup a duel boot systems. But their parents are paying for AOL as an ISP and will not switch. So not at least they can switch the os and pay for one ISP.
2. Emergancy Internet connection. Every once in a while your Internet connection goes down at the ISP level and you need a quick short term internet connection. Hay AOL give 1000 hours free internet for a month. And if you like me there are hundreds of those CDs with trial passwords around. It is tempoary free internet. Hey it may suck but it is better then nothing.
3. Simular to #2 many new computers come with a year of Free AOL. You got the computer at a good price why pay for an other ISP when you can get AOL for free for a year.
4. AOL only services. AOL has some services that other ISPs dont have. Although they are ways around them but sometimes they may be covient.
5. The @AOL.com E-mail address. Those are easy to remember for most people (becasue they use AOL). And with the e-mail they can find your IM name quicker.
I dont directly use AOL (I use RoadRunner own by AOL/TimeWarner) nor do I ever want to use AOL. But I just wanted to state they there are reasons why a UNIX/Linux person would want access to AOL. and they are people who can use Linux who dont care much about the proper geek way, they just want a good OS, or just to try something new. To say that All AOL users are Unix Ilerate or will always be that way is a gross overstatement.
PDF Format (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.flyingbuttmonkeys.com/mirrors/The-AOL-
Re:PDF Format (Score:3, Funny)
Hats off, though... and hats off to the person who did it in the first place...
/Brian
Reasons for AOL on Linux (Score:3, Funny)
- Because I'm a poor college student who's parents are still on AOL. Why pay for a second ISP when there's one available? Linux isn't a solution for them, but if I could dial up from the Linux Box in my room (Linux on the second cheap computer? I have the second cheap computer!), that'd make my life simpler.
- Who wants to reboot to a Win/9x partition, connect, DL kernel patch, reboot to linux partition... etc...
- Remember that AOL offers a nation wide network. So these days, that's nothing new. But think about moving every few years, and doing this six years ago. Want to hunt up a new ISP every time you move?
- If you've managed to keep an ISP (and e-mail address) for a few years, would you want to go through the hassle of chainging? There are alot of long time AOL users who cling to AOL just to keep their e-mail addresses. As they grow more comfortable with their computer they may even grow towards Linux. Being able to keep your ISP would make that decision easier.
It's not about converting windows users to Linux because now they can keep AOL (though I think you may see some of that). It's about letting power users simplify thier life. (Single ISP for both the kids running windows and parents running linux (or the other way around!))Another possible effect could be an "Offical AOL For Linux". Which would be easier and less stressful in the long run, continually fighting off the third party connections, or writing an offical port to get people away from third party connection software?
Really... (Score:3, Interesting)
Opening the AOL protcol and terrorisim legislation (Score:4, Funny)
Thus, this information is aiding and abetting computer trespass. Slashdot and the authors may be liable retroactively under the new terrorism legislation (depending on the scope of the hacking provisions) with mandatory life sentences for giving aid to terrorists.
By advocating an open AOL client for linux, given AOL's licensing terms, you are trying to change intellectual property policy, thus are "trying to change government policy through computer trespass" under the PATRIOT act, USA act, or whatever they are calling it now.
While this scenario seems crazy, keep in mind that this is literally within the scope of (some versions of) the terrorism legislation.
Conclusion: "You've got jail!"
finally! (Score:3, Funny)
AOL users discouraged from switching? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's just one problem. How many AOL users are even aware of the mere EXISTANCE of Linux/BSD? The people who use AOL when there are other options available are the same types of people who use Windows simply because that is what is loaded onto their computer when they bought it. The vast majority of AOL users aren't going to bother to find out whether other OSes would be good for them, considering that they haven't bothered to see whether ISPs are better.
-Jenn
AOL is just a modified PlayNet protocol (Score:5, Informative)
CRC-16 was used because modems (300 baud) didn't have any error correction, and we could use tables to process the data 16 bits at a time without using too much memory or CPU (the servers were 12MHz 68010's).
Packets all ended in hex 0D because we were using Telenet and Tymnet X25 dial-in pads in line-buffered mode, because we were charged by the packet. We also munged the other fields to avoid 0D (that may be gone now). Also, they were limited to 256 byte lines; thus the length byte instead of something longer.
Bytes 6 & 7 (which the author doesn't understand) are sequence numbers used in the sliding-window error-correction protocol.
The two-character ASCII prefixes were the actual message types for data packets, and were the input to a multi-tasking state-machine language. EM for example was (IIRC) part of email, perhaps to turn on the 'MAIL' icon. (I forget all the codes, I'm afraid).
Z on the front seems to be an AOL addition.
I was at PlayNet from Feb '84 to Feb '86 (when we declared bankruptcy). AOL licensed the PlayNet software from us for a song when we were running out of money, and rebranded it QuantumLink (and made minor mods, many of which we did for them).
PlayNet ran out of money in Feb '86, though the service continued to remain up for the 1500-3000 subs for another year or two.
PlayNet got a cut of AOL gross revenues until they finally wiggled out of it right before launching America Online (a port of the software to the PC with considerable enhancement), at which point PlayNet's bankruptcy was closed.
The servers were Stratus fault-tolerant machines, and as of 3 years ago they were still using them.
They didn't manage to change the 10-character limit on usernames until a few years ago. That limit was because of the 40-character width of the C64 screen, a ',' between each name, 16(?) characters for the room name plus a space, and we wanted N (12? 15?) users in a chat room. The result was that there were 10 characters available for the username.
The algorithm in AOL for selecting usernames that resulted in JohnQ12345 was also part of the old PlayNet (server) software. Also the default initial passwords for "marketing" accounts (i.e. the free disks) of "word-word" is another thing thought up over lunch at PlayNet that still hasn't changed.
Many things have been added & changed - but far more than I ever expected remains the same. I figured they'd dropped the ECC protocol ages ago.
-- Randell Jesup
I loved Q-Link (Score:3, Insightful)
I've expended a lot of thought about what led to this type of community, free of trolls and the seedy quality of most chatrooms. I think it came from a couple things:
1. It was new to those participating. We hadn't learned to abuse anonymity.
2. The size was right. IRC channels are too small, while the scale of IRC servers or AOL itself is too large.
3. We paid a buttload for the service. At $3.60/hour the bills racked up quick. No one would pay that today, but it sure kept the idiots out.
It would be nice if someone started an AOL type community that required an application to join, capped its membership numbers (~5000), did not provide anonymity and charged a fee. I doubt it could be profitable, but it might be very refreshing.
AOL now sucks less (Score:5, Insightful)
Alternate Clients (Score:3, Interesting)
Can someone please tell me if i understand this properly?
Places this could be useful (Score:4, Interesting)
Or better yet -- think about this: with this spec, an AOL module could be written for fetchmail. Suck down the mail from that old AOL account and deliver it via SMTP. Cool, eh?
They used to license the AOL protocol (Score:5, Interesting)
Six years later, Emailer still works great on Mac OS 9.x, and the original developers do not believe it should break under OS X. I still use it (as do a lot of people) and I still think it's the best mail client I've ever used, because it doesn't do HTML mail. Nothing but pure, speedy text.
~Philly
Screw the Client, write a new Server (Score:3, Interesting)
AOL version 2.5? (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, this document must be eons old as well. Who claims this is a new document? Why would anyone bother with deciphering AOL version 2.5 at this point? This is ancient info.
Open Source Linux AOL client exists. (Score:5, Informative)
If you want more info from other sites, just use this google search [google.com].
Re:Finally (Score:2)