Hotmail

[RH]

Anyone else notice Avenue A Inc is trying to invade when you use Hotmail?
Started about 3 days ago.

[YK]

RH wrote:
> Anyone else notice Avenue A Inc is trying to invade when you use
> Hotmail? Started about 3 days ago.

Get a good HOSTS file and they will be blocked.
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

# Aveunea.com | Avenue A, [Restricted Zone site]
#
127.0.0.1 avenuea.com
127.0.0.1 image.avenuea.com
127.0.0.1 www.avenuea.com
127.0.0.1 www.atdmt.com
127.0.0.1 cdntest.atdmt.com
127.0.0.1 click.atdmt.com
127.0.0.1 spd.atdmt.com
127.0.0.1 switch.atdmt.com
127.0.0.1 view.atdmt.com
127.0.0.1 image.accendo.com
127.0.0.1 www.avenueainc.com
127.0.0.1 aimage.avenuea.com
127.0.0.1 cxn-dwtn.avenuea.com
127.0.0.1 cxn-ny.avenuea.com
127.0.0.1 image.avea.a1.avenuea.com
127.0.0.1 image.avea.a7.avenuea.com
127.0.0.1 rs1.avenuea.nu
127.0.0.1 rs1.avenuea.tv

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:17:57 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
<nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> BTW, msnbc now and then is running a script that will shut off ZA Pro and
> strip all your sites from it.
[snip]

Can you provide any hard evidence (such as a URL for the source code for the
script) to back up that claim? If so, and if it checks out, they are
CLEARLY in serious violation of 18 USC 1030. If not, then you're just
blowing smoke.

Three guesses which I'm betting on.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[mto]

"Jay T. Blocksom" <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in message
news:4ofojvk4grd65gm1se6iu21e34rptc06qr@news.rcn.c om...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:17:57 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
> <nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > BTW, msnbc now and then is running a script that will shut off ZA Pro
and
> > strip all your sites from it.
> [snip]
>
> Can you provide any hard evidence (such as a URL for the source code for
the
> script) to back up that claim? If so, and if it checks out, they are
> CLEARLY in serious violation of 18 USC 1030. If not, then you're just
> blowing smoke.
>
> Three guesses which I'm betting on.

I have had it happen twice, both times at msnbc or msn. Both times it
appeared from the source code, which I read very well, to be related to ads
that were being served. In neither case did I think to mark the specific
URL for your edification - which would not be of value at any rate since
advertising comes from a completely different server and appears somewhat
randomly. Further, since the code appeared to be advertising related, that
source code would not have shown in the page anyway - you've heard of "rich
format" ads I am sure.

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:03:59 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
<nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.thanks> wrote:
>
> "Jay T. Blocksom" <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
> message news:4ofojvk4grd65gm1se6iu21e34rptc06qr@news.rcn.c om...
[snip]
> >
> > Can you provide any hard evidence (such as a URL for the source code
> > for the script) to back up that claim?
[snip]
>
> I have had it happen twice, both times at msnbc or msn. Both times it
> appeared from the source code, which I read very well, to be related to
> ads that were being served. In neither case did I think to mark the
> specific URL for your edification - which would not be of value at any
> rate since advertising comes from a completely different server and
> appears somewhat randomly. Further, since the code appeared to be
> advertising related, that source code would not have shown in the page
> anyway - you've heard of "rich format" ads I am sure.

So then, the answer to my question is "No."

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -