Email

by Mike Masnick




AOL To Integrate Plaxo -- Get Ready For Plaxo Spam Influx

from the oh-great dept

Uh oh. For those who remember, the September that never ended was when AOL users were suddenly let loose on Usenet, and what was once useful, was filled with a ton of somewhat clueless posters who made it difficult to filter through the muck. Today, AOL announced plans to integrate Plaxo's tools into AIM. Considering the amount of Plaxo spam that already is out there, do we really need to make it even easier to bug people every few months about their contact info? Almost all of the Plaxo spam I receive is from people I do not know. I don't know why I'm in their address book -- and I don't know why they've told Plaxo they know me. So, do we really need millions of AOL users who don't quite realize that they're about to spam everyone they ever spoke to, and handing them a tool to do so? Update: A Plaxo representative has given an in-depth rebuttal in the comments that's worth reading. I still find the claim that you only get spammed if you're a "non-Plaxo member" to be a bit disingenuous. It's telling me if I only signed up, I'd avoid these messages. However, the other points made are certainly valid, and clearly Plaxo is making a big effort to deal with some of the early complaints about the service. The note also points out that (thankfully!) part of the AOL agreement is that the initial process of spamming everyone you know has been removed from the startup wizard -- so hopefully the results won't be quite so annoying for those of us who prefer not to use their service.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Stacy Martin, 6 Jul 2005 @ 7:46pm

    Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

    Mike - I realize you've never been a fan of Plaxo but I believe your facts are incorrect. By Plaxo spam, I'm assuming you are referring to the Plaxo update request messages Plaxo members may be sending you. It appears that you are under the misperception that these messages are automated pings sent out by Plaxo.
    This is incorrect. The fact is Plaxo does not send out any automated messages. All Plaxo update request messages are initiated and approved by the sending Plaxo member who has complete control over to whom, when, and the personalized message content of any Update Request message processed through our service.
    Plaxo members have chosen to a send message to a selected contact within their own address book in an effort to stay in touch with the contact. The message provides the recipient the Plaxo member's updated contact information and optionally asks the recipient to update the member as well. Plaxo processes these update requests and any responses the member may receive similar to a user sending email through Yahoo! or AOL. We have no tolerance for spam, and Plaxo members are prohibiting from using the service to send advertisements or commercial solicitations. Plaxo members are expected to respect the privacy of their contacts and follow proper Plaxo etiquette. Any violation of our terms of service or privacy practices will result in the member's removal from Plaxo.
    The fact is also that Update Request emails are only utilized when communicating with non-Plaxo members. Member to member communications are handled internally within Plaxo, allowing members to be automatically updated and stay in touch. No e-mail is required or utilized.
    This is what should interest you most about the Plaxo/AOL announcement. Currently, a new Plaxo member will find that typically 20 percent of their address book is already Plaxo-connected and thus their updated contact information may be provided by default. With the expected influx of 40M new AOL members into Plaxo, new (and existing) Plaxo members will find a much larger percentage of their contacts are already Plaxo members.
    As a result, we have removed the Update Contacts wizard from the initial user flow for AOL members and AIM users who adopt the new Plaxo contact management solution. While the Update Request feature has been popular with Plaxo members enabling the member to easily send a message to non-members within their address book, we feel this is less important given the larger percentage of their contacts who will already be Plaxo members. We will focus on ensuring that they can easily consolidate, merge, and populate their existing address book entries.
    But regardless, if you are not a Plaxo member, we do allow contacts to instruct us to block any messages sent through our service to their e-mail address. While we can not stop a person from attempting to communicate with someone they have the contact information for outside of our service, for each message we process, we include a link that allows the recipient to instruct Plaxo to block further messages sent through our service. In addition, on the recipient's behalf, we can also request the member to remove the contact from the member's address book.
    I do find it ironic that you reference the David Coursey article about spamming his address book. David was like yourself who at first had reservations about Plaxo. But he took the time to look closer into Plaxo and reconsider. Today, David Coursey is an active Plaxo member.
    Finally, you stated as far back as 2003 that Plaxo was simply a feature of an e-mail system. We also disagree on this point. The fact is Plaxo is about creating interoperability between otherwise closed platforms and keeping your information available and synchronized with these other systems. That's no "feature" that any one e-mail client would be able build and as AOL stated themselves, Plaxo had what they were looking for in building a Universal Address Book and it was best to simply integrate Plaxo into their client.
    If you were to truly look at what we provide, you'd see that we provide integration and synchronization directly into a user's Outlook and Outlook Express address book helping to keep information up to date and accessible. Address book information is automatically backed up and can be quickly restored, should the person ever lose their laptop or suffer a system crash. And this synchronization has been extended to include a members's Yahoo! account, and soon to AOL and AIM users. Our Plaxo API can extend Plaxo to other applications, clients and services which we hope to soon announce. Clients for Thunderbird, Mac OS X, ACT!, Incredimail, Lotus Notes, and Groupwise are often requested.
    Providing the foundation for a universal address book allows people to easily access their address book, calendar, notes, and task information directly from Outlook, Outlook Express, Yahoo!, Internet Explorer, AOL, AIM, any web browser, or WAP enabled device. This is all done while keeping the members information secure, private, and under their own control.
    I would say we both agree that there is value in staying in touch with people you know, though we may disagree on the approach. Managing contact information and keeping it updated is only one part of the challenge and Plaxo certainly extends beyond just simple contact management.
    For example:
    - The new software will enable AOL members, AIM users and Plaxo members to detect AIM presence information from within Outlook and Outlook Express. The familiar AOL Running Man icon will appear in contact lists and e-mail headers to let users know when AIM buddies are online and available to chat.
    - Plaxo members can be receive reminders of upcoming special events such as Birthdays of their contacts and easily send an e-Card or other gift to personalize the relationship.
    There are many other examples of how Plaxo helps people to stay in touch and connected. I invite you to take a closer look. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly.
    Stacy Martin
    Plaxo Privacy Officer
    privacy @t plaxo.com

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Steevo, 6 Jul 2005 @ 10:26pm

      Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

      Heh. Yeah. All asinine assumptions. That I am in someone's address book does not mean I know or want to communicate or keep in touch, or especially have an even semi-automated email sent my way through your "service".
      As an example I may have written someone- one time, to give them information they had requested. Or to tell them they have the wrong email address. Maybe the message was replied by them, and auto added to their address book. Or my message may have been filtered to junk, when they "not junked" it I was added to their address book.
      Forget all that stuff. If someone wants to email me they should HAVE to do it manually.
      Remind me to add all Plaxo's IPs to my blocklist. Sheesh.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Stacy Martin, 6 Jul 2005 @ 11:30pm

        Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

        I agree that just because someone has your contact information does not mean you want to keep in touch with them, nor does it give them the right to attempt to contact you. As I mentioned, Plaxo members are expected to respect the privacy of their contacts, and this would include not contacting people who are unlikely to recognize the Plaxo contact as a known contact. Failure to do so, may be considered abuse and result in the removal of the person from the Plaxo service. Reports of potential abuse can be reported to our Abuse department at abuse @t plaxo.com.

        But I also want to make sure it is clear that when someone sends you an update request, they have done this manually. They've used Plaxo to select who they wish to a message to, decided what information of their own they wish to send to you (as a v-card attachment), and personalize the message they send. We do provide some default text the member may choose to use, but the member can personalize the text to their own preference if they wish. Members are encouraged to personalize their message. The message is then sent through our service and processed before being delivered.

        Of course the member could have sent a similar message outside of Plaxo, but they have chosen to use Plaxo to streamline the process. By first processing the message, we are able filter out messages non-Plaxo members have instructed us to block, we can ensure the messages do not include any unsafe attachments, and provide a more efficient mechanism for people to respond.

        I'll be the first to admit that Plaxo may not for everyone. But our goal is to provide a respected and valued service that both Plaxo members and non-Plaxo members can trust. We strive to operate in an open and transparent manner and allow people to decide for themselves. This approach has proven success for establishing business relationships with companies such as Yahoo!, Cisco, and now AOL. But if you've determined that Plaxo is not appropriate for your needs, you may wish to read our blog article Is it time to update your block list???

        Regards,

        Stacy Martin
        Plaxo Privacy Officer
        privacy @t plaxo.com

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike (profile), 6 Jul 2005 @ 11:36pm

          Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

          But I also want to make sure it is clear that when someone sends you an update request, they have done this manually. They've used Plaxo to select who they wish to a message to, decided what information of their own they wish to send to you (as a v-card attachment), and personalize the message they send. We do provide some default text the member may choose to use, but the member can personalize the text to their own preference if they wish. Members are encouraged to personalize their message. The message is then sent through our service and processed before being delivered.

          Hi Stacy... I know you've made this point a few times, but I think all of us who feel overwhelmed with Plaxo messages find it to be a bit of a ridiculous claim.

          I have never... not once... received a Plaxo spam that was personalized in anyway. Also, since I manage a few email lists, I get a ton of Plaxo messages from subscribers to those lists, which suggests that plenty of people just automatically send out their Plaxo messages to all users.

          You may blame your users for that, but from the recipient side, it certainly makes it feel like Plaxo makes it way too easy for them to spam everyone in their address book.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Tim, 7 Jul 2005 @ 4:12am

            Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

            Yes, the plaxo business model is to encourage its users to send lots of emails. Whether it's a machine that automates this or a general modus operandi, I don't care; it comes under the category of "junk" to me, and I tend not to respond to people who use such things.

            I've recently had something similar from a competitor in this area, subject "let's keep in touch". If you're capable of entering my email address into a form on a webpage, you can stick it in your email client and actually talk to me instead of holding me at arm's length via an indirecting service.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              GM, 7 Jul 2005 @ 8:44am

              Curing the Plaxo Plague

              It's obvious that for Plaxo's viral model to work, they depend on the "spam by proxy" approach through their users, no matter what they falsely claim.

              For every 100 PlaxoPlague emails, a certain percentage will find out about Plaxo and decide to join, right? Just like spam.

              Here's some info you might find useful

              Plaxo.com is at IP address:
              66.151.128.5

              But several other IP's are all within the 66.151.128.* block, so I recommend dropping everything in this block of addresses.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Stacy Martin, 7 Jul 2005 @ 11:04am

                "Is it time to update your block list???"

                Actually, I'd say that in order for our business model to work, it depends on building a business that people can trust. We feel trust comes from trying to do the right thing, listening and responding to the feedback of both members and non-members and operating in an open and transparent fashion.

                If administrators do wish to block messages from Plaxo members sent to their domain, my advice would be to point people to our blog entry on this rather than passing on incorrect information.

                People can also chose to block messages sent to their own specific email address by following the link included in the Update Request message or alternatively going to:
                https://www.plaxo.com/opt_out

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Stacy Martin, 7 Jul 2005 @ 12:01pm

            Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

            Hi Mike - I hear what you saying and the frustration is understandable. We are working to better educate members about proper Plaxo etiquette which includes personalizing Plaxo messages and giving greater thought to whom they are sending an update request to.

            We also continue to make tweaks to the product in order to improve the experience for all but any suggestions are welcomed. For example, currently one of the first operations Plaxo members run is our Update Contact Wizard (UCW), which allows them to select people in their address book to send an update request to. This operation is prominent because one of the first things most people want to do in joining Plaxo is update their address book. The initial use of the UCW by Plaxo members is responsible for most mail sent through Plaxo.

            But as I mentioned, this operation becomes much less necessary when the new software becomes available since much of a person's address book will be able to be automatically updated through the Plaxo network. So we will be removing the UCW from the initial Plaxo/AOL member experience.

            We are also working to implement other controls that may limit the number of update request messages a person can send through Plaxo as well as the number of entries that a Plaxo member may maintain. We already filter out known distribution lists and generic email boxes, but you may contact me directly if would like me to add any other distribution lists to our filter list (privacy @t plaxo.com). It's also true that most people choose to use the default text, possibly because they can't think of anything better to say or we simply need to do a better job at educating users, so we are looking to improve in this area as well.

            Bottom line is, we don't want to see people sending out messages to people they don't know. It hurts them, it hurts us, and it bothers the recipient. Fortunately, the large percentage of members use Plaxo in a responsible way. They send update requests to people they know and their address books are automatically updated. We'd love to get to the point where email is no longer necessary, and the network is used to automatically keep people in touch. We certainly feel the Plaxo/AOL integration is a big step in the right direction.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2005 @ 9:36am

          Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

          Stacy, is all you do surf blogs and hunt for any comment about Plaxo? For somebody that calls themselves a "privacy officer", you don't seem to care very much about people's privacy. "Spin doctor" would seem to be a more appropriate title.

          " We strive to operate in an open and transparent manner and allow people to decide for themselves."

          Ha. If this were true, you'd let people opt in, rather than forcing people to opt out. (BTW, pointing people to the page on blocking messages at the server level is a bit of a stretch for most folks. Why not point to your opt out page instead? Too effective?)

          Do you highlight for sms.ac in your spare time? Their "we're not spammers, honest" line sounds an awful lot like yours.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Stacy Martin, 7 Jul 2005 @ 10:57am

            Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

            So Coward, are you saying you would prefer a company that does not listen to the feedback of users or try to publicly address questions or concerns people may have??? You prefer a company that requires users to come to their site to voice a problem, and perhaps doesn't respond to support or abuse tickets???

            If so, I'm sorry but that is not how Plaxo operates. For us, part of the philosophy of operating in an open and transparent fashion means responding to the feedback and comments of both Plaxo members and non-Plaxo members. That feedback doesn't always make it to our doorsteps, but fortunately through word of mouth and tools like Bloglines, we can be proactive and reach out. Certainly, I've got other things I could be doing, but I feel it is important to add to the conversation where their is value I feel I can add or assistance I can provide. My goal is not to sway people's opinion, but rather just make sure they have the proper facts so they can decide for themselves. I'm sorry if this does not meet with your expectations.

            As for the opt-out link, if you look at my previous post, I did mentioned that in processing each message, we ensure there is the opt-out link in every message sent through our system. The recipient can choose to block messages from a specific Plaxo member or all Plaxo members, depending on their preference. The Opt-out link is also avaible on our Support site, and I've published it many times in my own postings. People can go to it directly at: https://www.plaxo.com/opt_out

            But I'm sure you noted, the link only works for a specific email address and there may be people who wish to take action for their entire domain. If I'm looking at it from an administrator's perspective that didn't want to receive Plaxo messages, then this would actually seem to be MORE effective.

            As for why there is no "opt-in", as I explained before, we are simply the email service provider and not the sender of the message. Do you require Yahoo! to provide an opt-in before a Yahoo! member may send you an email through their service? AOL? MSN? gMail? How is sending a message through Plaxo different from sending a message through these services? We all have Acceptable Use Policies that prohibit spam and we all process messages based on the instructions of the member. Simply because the focus of our services are different, does not change the manner in which we all operate.

            But unlike these other service providers, we provide the ability for you to block further messages sent through the service and report abuse. Personally, I feel that is the action of a responsible service provider, but perhaps I am in the minority here.

            As for you comment about not caring very much about people's privacy, this seems more like a personal attack and nothing worth responding to. Privacy for both Plaxo members and non-members is my primary job. We follow some of the most stringent privacy practices in use by an service. This matrix compares Plaxo's privacy practices with other well-known and reputable Internet services including Yahoo!, AOL, MSN, eBay, and Amazon. But if you any specific concerns about how you feel we are failing in this respect, please let me know and I will be happy to respond.

            Regards,

            Stacy Martin
            Plaxo Privacy Officer
            privacy @t plaxo.com

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2005 @ 12:37pm

              Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

              this is all hot air.

              "we are simply the email service provider and not the sender of the message" -- so ISPs that allow users to send out spam can hold their hands up as blameless? I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that.

              If Plaxo really, truly, cared about privacy, rather than having someone called a "privacy officer" who seems to do little more than comment into submission anybody who dares to question her company and its business practices, it would take the time and resources to realize it's looking at this situation completely backwards -- people don't take lightly to your messages because they act JUST LIKE SPAM: they come in, uninvited and unannounced, and don't stop until the recipient takes some action to make them stop. If the process were reversed, where recipients could opt in or be invited in, perhaps it wouldn't rub people the wrong way.

              BTW, about 6 years ago, this book came out called "Permission Marketing" by a guy named Seth Godin. It was pretty popular at the time -- in fact it was pretty much required reading as it helped transform marketing and Internet marketing in particular. Don't know if you were too young to absorb it or what, but you might want to catch up to the rest of the Net and check it out.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Stacy Martin, 7 Jul 2005 @ 1:48pm

                Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

                AC -
                "-- people don't take lightly to your messages because they act JUST LIKE SPAM: they come in, uninvited and unannounced, and don't stop until the recipient takes some action to make them stop."

                I don't dispute that you feel the messages are spam. But simply because they come in uninvited and unannounced, does not make them spam. After all, aren't all email messages uninvited and unannounced in some respect?

                What's important is that the message be personalized and come from someone you recognize. The purpose of the Update Request is to update you and have you optionally update the requesting Plaxo member. Obviously, you are more likely to accept a message from someone you know, and a personalized message helps you to know the person actually took the time to write the message.

                I'd imagine that if your close friend, the Cowardly Lion sent you a personal message telling you he's now the King of Emerald City and to let him know if anything changed with you, you would not feel the message is spam. Yet this message could have easily been sent through Plaxo. We need to do a better job at getting users to only communicate with contacts they know and are likely to recognize them as a known contact, as well as personalize their messages where possible.

                "so ISPs that allow users to send out spam can hold their hands up as blameless? I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that."

                No, ISPs are not blameless, nor do I believe I was advocating that the ISPs are blameless. I was simply clarifying that we are not the senders of the messages. Certainly, if Plaxo were the sender of the message, then an opt-in is proper and required. But this is not the case.

                But though ISPs are not the senders of the messages, we still have a responsibility to all Internet users to ensure our services are used responsibily. We monitor for abuse and have very strict guidelines by which we expect members to abide by. All reports of abuse are followed up on and corrective action taken. We continue to educate users on proper usage.

                But I would like to explore your opt-in suggestion. How would imagine that recipients be allowed to opt-in to receive an Update Request message from a Plaxo member. There appears to be a chicken/egg problem here.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2005 @ 2:19pm

                  Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

                  "No, ISPs are not blameless, nor do I believe I was advocating that the ISPs are blameless. I was simply clarifying that we are not the senders of the messages."

                  You said earlier Plaxo is the "email service provider". Please clarify, then, how this differentiates you from an ISP that lets customers send out spam, which above you seem to object to.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Stacy Martin, 7 Jul 2005 @ 3:01pm

                    Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

                    I'm not sure where I lost you AC. Perhaps you can contact me offline to discuss (privacy @t plaxo.com).

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2005 @ 4:29pm

                      Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

                      But I thought you were a company that "listened to the feedback of users" and "publicly addressed questions or concerns people may have"?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2005 @ 4:33pm

                  Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

                  "But simply because they come in uninvited and unannounced, does not make them spam. After all, aren't all email messages uninvited and unannounced in some respect? " BzzzzT. Wrong answer. Sorry, but thanks for playing.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              rm, 11 Jul 2005 @ 7:53am

              Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

              This matrix compares Plaxo's privacy practices with other well-known and reputable Internet services including

              lets see who you're comparing yourself to here.

              Yahoo!
              - who don't cancel child pr0n sites
              - spammers
              - too clueless to operate an email server correctly.

              , AOL,
              Home of clueless users. Patchy record on spam. Recently had problems with private user info being stolen and sold.

              MSN
              who allow bcentral users to spam

              , eBay,
              wow one company i can't remember anything bad about.

              and Amazon.
              Known Spammers.

              Comparing your company to such a group certainly says something about your company. I'm just not sure its anything you would actually have wanted to say had you thought about it.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Steevo, 8 Jul 2005 @ 3:17pm

          Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

          That's really not the issue.
          If someone wants and needs Plaxo's service, and signs up for it because they want and need it, that's probably fine. They would understand what it is.
          But if someone like AOL were to plop Plaxo in a million people's lap, that's different.
          A million people who likely don't know what it really is and don't understand the ramifications of the thing they have just had plopped in their lap.
          The potential for the clueless to act irresponsibly is 1000x greater than if they had to sign up for Plaxo and maybe pay for it.
          You know how it is. "Gee, what's this? Notify EVERYONE about my new email? Wow, sounds great. Just click here"
          They should have to type all the addresses in manually.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Stacy Martin, 8 Jul 2005 @ 9:21pm

            Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

            Steevo - I agree that it would not be wise to simply plop Plaxo into a million people's lap without proper notification and consent. This is not the intention.

            Both Plaxo and AIM/AOL will be able to be used independently. But AIM and AOL users will also have the option of using the AOL Universal Address Book powered by Plaxo. If the user wishes to take advantage of this feature, they will need to sign-up with Plaxo similarly to how a person currently registers with Plaxo today.

            And no, there are no plans to add a new feature to "just click here" to notify everyone about your new email. As I mentioned earlier, the Update Contact Wizard will also be removed from the initial flow since much of people's addressbooks will be able to be updated automatically through Plaxo Network.

            Once registered, members won't have to perform any manual updating or send out messages. Members will simply need to manage their own identify and decide who and how they wish to share their own information with others.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Ian Peake, 29 Oct 2010 @ 9:39pm

      Re: Getting the facts correct about Plaxo and AOL

      Sir my credit card has me billed for $19.95 to my knowledge I have never given permission to join you scheme.I have one colleague that has signed up with youand he wanted me to enlist but I DID NOT give permission.Please remove me from your site and refund the $19.95.Ian Peake 0437990184 Australia

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Sofa King Stoned, 7 Jul 2005 @ 8:39am

    WWDD?

    What would dorpus do?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2005 @ 5:06am

    No Subject Given

    Plaxo's entire business model is built on (a) spam and (b) privacy invasion. It's thus hardly surprising that they have someone monitoring online forums and showing up to spin-doctor (that is: lie) whenever this is pointed out.

    I recommend not only blacklisting their domain in your mail system(s), but firewalling out their network allocation in order to prevent them from abusing your users -- because that's most certainly what they'll do if given the chance.

    And in the long term -- anyone with "Plaxo" on their resume should be blacklisted for life. There's no place on our Internet for scumbags like them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Willaim P., 16 Apr 2006 @ 6:41am

      Re: No Subject Given

      I quite agree with AC. Spammers will be joining up, so they will get all the email contacts. Plaxo are helping spammers do their work. Plaxo SAY they will throw spammers off, but by then the damage is done. Spammers will have all the contasts email addresses. IF they were sincere, they would allow people to opt IN, & not OUT as THEY want. AOL have been losing clients, & are complicit in this scam. It's a pathetic attempt to gain more clients, & the whole thing sucks, IMHO. I for one, shall be blocklisting Plaxo.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Sgt DeWolf, 17 Oct 2005 @ 11:34am

    How does Plaxo work

    I've read a whole lot of information on how Plaxo says it works but I have not read anything on how it works.

    I am not looking for any trademarked or patented information but what I am looking for is quite simple: HOW DOES YOUR PROCESS WORK?

    I am curious as to things like "why do you need a plug-in to MS Outlook?" A plug-in tells me that you are forcing it to talk back to your Plaxo servers. If this is true, then what information is being maintained on your servers. Are you maintaining names and addresses or just pointers to a members MS Outlook?

    Since your "service" is free, how do you make money? Do you sell your lists? Do you sell ads that pop up to me?

    From what I have been reading about what your company has been saying about out there... how good it is, it appears that your service is too good to be true. And, rhetorically speaking, you know what my mom told be about those kind of people!

    Sgt

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    George T Morton, 21 Oct 2005 @ 4:52am

    Plaxo

    Dear Sir, I am a plaxo user with out look express. I am in the process of changing all my address book to aol. I understand that their is a relationship with aol and plaxo but not yet in place.
    Do you know when this process of moving my address book to aol will be?
    Thank You

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Hawaii Friends, 22 Mar 2006 @ 4:38am

    Oh come on, they aren't that bad.

    Guys gotta stop whining so much. There are plenty of ways to control the spam if you do not like it. Plaxo spam isn't even remotely as terrible as regular spam about my penis size and how to refinance my home. I am not a Plaxo member nor do I really care for those services either, but all the Plaxo spam I did receive were from legitimate friends of mine. I told my friends that had it, basically, if we are close enough significantly to the point where we keep in touch, I will call you time and time again. If I lose you, well hey, we probably weren't that good of friends anyways and life goes on. So, really, I have no need for it, but come on, they have a worthy cause, and the only spam I received was from people I knew.

    Oh and btw, your continuous flaming of the privacy rep only helps their marketing and advertisement and fame ?infamy? on this site. So if you really don't like them, you should be smart and shut up.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.