AOL Shuts Down Trillian Users
Friday, February 1, 2002 by T-Man | Discussion: WinCustomize News
AOL shuts out users in battle over IM
By Lisa M. Bowman
Special to ZDNet News
January 30, 2002, 5:20 PM PT
People using the popular Trillian software may lose access to part of AOL Time Warner's instant messaging system.
Firing another salvo in the battle over instant messaging, America Online is blocking people using the Trillian interface from linking to its AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) system.
Trillian, which allows people to access multiple instant messaging programs from one screen, has attracted nearly a million people who are hoping to streamline their use of incompatible systems, including AOL's AIM and ICQ, Yahoo's Messenger and Microsoft's MSN Messenger.
But in the past 24 hours, an elaborate game of cat and mouse has developed between AOL and Trillian creator Cerulean Studios--as the start-up has repeatedly released new software designed to get around the block, prompting AOL to rush in and stop people from using it.
Meanwhile, Trillian fans are snared in cross fire.
"AOL is being selfish," Trillian user Mike Cicciarelli said in an instant messaging exchange with News.com.
Trillian user Chris Hilbert said he's downloaded new software several times in the past day in an attempt to re-establish access with AIM. Hilbert said he uses Trillian because it's simple.
"I like that there are no ads, less bloat," said Hilbert, an Indiana University student and creator of the FileFlash Web site. "I don't have to have four different clients open."
But AOL said it's a matter of security and is framing the conflict as yet another chapter in the instant messaging wars. In recent years, AOL has clashed with other makers of IM software, including Microsoft and AT&T. Both companies tried to create systems that let people correspond with AIM users--only to have them blocked.
"It has long been our very public policy that when a service unleashes software that hacks into our system, and endangers the security of our system, we stop it," AOL spokeswoman Kathy McKiernan said.
McKiernan said that Trillian does not have a business relationship with AOL. "To the extent that consumers think they do, they were misled," McKiernan said.
Meanwhile, the creators of Trillian plan to keep up the tit-for-tat efforts. Since AOL first started blocking the software Tuesday, they have released one workaround and at least two more full downloads of Trillian.
Michael Gartenberg, a research director at Jupiter Media Metrix, called AOL's practice "predatory," but he said at least the media behemoth is consistent in blocking both large and small companies from accessing its system.
"There are no technical reasons they can't open up IM, but there are a lot of business reasons not to," Gartenberg said. "They're not going to unless they're forced to."
News.com's Evan Hansen contributed to this report.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-826707.html
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2844439,00.html
By Lisa M. Bowman
Special to ZDNet News
January 30, 2002, 5:20 PM PT
People using the popular Trillian software may lose access to part of AOL Time Warner's instant messaging system.
Firing another salvo in the battle over instant messaging, America Online is blocking people using the Trillian interface from linking to its AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) system.
Trillian, which allows people to access multiple instant messaging programs from one screen, has attracted nearly a million people who are hoping to streamline their use of incompatible systems, including AOL's AIM and ICQ, Yahoo's Messenger and Microsoft's MSN Messenger.
But in the past 24 hours, an elaborate game of cat and mouse has developed between AOL and Trillian creator Cerulean Studios--as the start-up has repeatedly released new software designed to get around the block, prompting AOL to rush in and stop people from using it.
Meanwhile, Trillian fans are snared in cross fire.
"AOL is being selfish," Trillian user Mike Cicciarelli said in an instant messaging exchange with News.com.
Trillian user Chris Hilbert said he's downloaded new software several times in the past day in an attempt to re-establish access with AIM. Hilbert said he uses Trillian because it's simple.
"I like that there are no ads, less bloat," said Hilbert, an Indiana University student and creator of the FileFlash Web site. "I don't have to have four different clients open."
But AOL said it's a matter of security and is framing the conflict as yet another chapter in the instant messaging wars. In recent years, AOL has clashed with other makers of IM software, including Microsoft and AT&T. Both companies tried to create systems that let people correspond with AIM users--only to have them blocked.
"It has long been our very public policy that when a service unleashes software that hacks into our system, and endangers the security of our system, we stop it," AOL spokeswoman Kathy McKiernan said.
McKiernan said that Trillian does not have a business relationship with AOL. "To the extent that consumers think they do, they were misled," McKiernan said.
Meanwhile, the creators of Trillian plan to keep up the tit-for-tat efforts. Since AOL first started blocking the software Tuesday, they have released one workaround and at least two more full downloads of Trillian.
Michael Gartenberg, a research director at Jupiter Media Metrix, called AOL's practice "predatory," but he said at least the media behemoth is consistent in blocking both large and small companies from accessing its system.
"There are no technical reasons they can't open up IM, but there are a lot of business reasons not to," Gartenberg said. "They're not going to unless they're forced to."
News.com's Evan Hansen contributed to this report.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-826707.html
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2844439,00.html
 |
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Elwin
Reply #22 Saturday, February 2, 2002 9:39 AM
Reply #22 Saturday, February 2, 2002 9:39 AM
"You can't compare a paid service like the OD network with a free one, like AIM."
Sure I can - I just did.
And as TGR pointed out, it's not really "free" in the way that you seem to think. If it's an ad supported service, whether it's AOL, ICQ, or any other service for that matter, circumventing the ads is theft - plain and simple.
All those cracks that seem some how condoned for ICQ are just that - cracks.
"How would you feel if you had to use Outlook to send email to somebody who is using Outlook?"
Well, if the central server connecting the communication between the 2 were provided by MS, along with the software protocols, I'd think that it was completely reasonable...
Sure I can - I just did.
And as TGR pointed out, it's not really "free" in the way that you seem to think. If it's an ad supported service, whether it's AOL, ICQ, or any other service for that matter, circumventing the ads is theft - plain and simple.
All those cracks that seem some how condoned for ICQ are just that - cracks.
"How would you feel if you had to use Outlook to send email to somebody who is using Outlook?"
Well, if the central server connecting the communication between the 2 were provided by MS, along with the software protocols, I'd think that it was completely reasonable...
michael havard
Reply #23 Saturday, February 2, 2002 12:36 PM
Reply #23 Saturday, February 2, 2002 12:36 PM
Elwin, by that logic I'm stealing when I use the clicker to switch channels during a commercial on my TV or when I fast forward using the vcr or when I skip look into the table of contents of a magazine and skip over the 20 pages of ads just to get to the content I want. What about if I purposefully show up late to a movie to skip the commercials or only listen to public radio. Am I stealing when my mind just zones out during another ignorant commericial or when I immediately scroll a web page so I don't see the "shock the monkey" ad which makes me want to go into a fit. Am I stealing when I use ad blocking software or filter spam from my inbox? What about when I throw away all of the ads that come in my snail mail or when I sign up to not receive phone sells. Am I stealing because I have chosen NOT to see the ad. With theft there has to be some loss involved. i.e. I steal something, someone else goes without that item. If I block ads or ignore them AOL has no way of knowing and therefore continues to charge for the same amount of ad space and receives the same income, therefore they are not out any resource/good/service. I've still signed up for an account, I'm still active on their roles, they are still selling me to the marketing system. Had Trillian said "You don't even have to have an AIM account" then that would be depriving AOL of something.
Garoo
Reply #24 Saturday, February 2, 2002 1:37 PM
Reply #24 Saturday, February 2, 2002 1:37 PM
If advertisers really pay per active user, and not per ad views, then it explains even better AOL's position: advertisers find out that one million people are using Trillian instead of AIM, and go to AOL and say: why are we paying for them if they don't see the ads?
AOL leaves alone other clients because they're *marginal*. As people pointed out in some news comments, all this happens because Trillian has been prominently displayed on popular download sites. They can't afford to let their advertisers *know* that they're paying for nothing.
As for the email analogy, it's irrelevant: email server and bandwith costs are covered by the sender and receiver's ISP, so you pay for your email (or, with free email webservices, you pay by viewing ads). In the case of AIM, if two Trillian users chat on an AOL server, they're both making AOL pay for them and giving nothing in return.
I'm glad Trillian exists (I use it for ICQ) but you can't *blame* AOL for tring and protect their income.
AOL leaves alone other clients because they're *marginal*. As people pointed out in some news comments, all this happens because Trillian has been prominently displayed on popular download sites. They can't afford to let their advertisers *know* that they're paying for nothing.
As for the email analogy, it's irrelevant: email server and bandwith costs are covered by the sender and receiver's ISP, so you pay for your email (or, with free email webservices, you pay by viewing ads). In the case of AIM, if two Trillian users chat on an AOL server, they're both making AOL pay for them and giving nothing in return.
I'm glad Trillian exists (I use it for ICQ) but you can't *blame* AOL for tring and protect their income.
Elwin
Reply #25 Saturday, February 2, 2002 3:17 PM
Reply #25 Saturday, February 2, 2002 3:17 PM
Well, gosh guys, you've convinced me - I was wrong.
Golly - what should I do next? I know. I think I'll crank out about a hundred copies of Photoshop and pass them out to anyone that wants them. I mean heck - it won't do any harm right?
After all - "With theft there has to be some loss involved. i.e. I steal something, someone else goes without that item."
Nobody goes without. As a matter of fact, I'll be a regular saint. I buy a hundred blank CDs, pass 'em around - hell, I'm a regular Robin Hood...
Of course, my conscience still tingles from time to time over that AOL AIM user agreement thingy that I said yes to when signing up for the service, but I'm sure that will go away with time.
Golly - what should I do next? I know. I think I'll crank out about a hundred copies of Photoshop and pass them out to anyone that wants them. I mean heck - it won't do any harm right?
After all - "With theft there has to be some loss involved. i.e. I steal something, someone else goes without that item."
Nobody goes without. As a matter of fact, I'll be a regular saint. I buy a hundred blank CDs, pass 'em around - hell, I'm a regular Robin Hood...
Of course, my conscience still tingles from time to time over that AOL AIM user agreement thingy that I said yes to when signing up for the service, but I'm sure that will go away with time.
paxx
Reply #26 Saturday, February 2, 2002 3:51 PM
Reply #26 Saturday, February 2, 2002 3:51 PM
If indeed AOL supplies the server between the two then OK, AOL is paying for you to communicate. Therefore, AOL should jump on the bandwagon to standardize instant messenging ASAP so people can use other servers (MSN or Yahoo for example) in order to communicate with AOL or ICQ users.
But they refuse to participate, they are too comfortably sitting in their almost monopolistic situation, saying "Go to hell, we ARE the standard and we're not sharing!".
Oh well, sorry guys, but with an attitude like that I have no sympathy.
But they refuse to participate, they are too comfortably sitting in their almost monopolistic situation, saying "Go to hell, we ARE the standard and we're not sharing!".
Oh well, sorry guys, but with an attitude like that I have no sympathy.
Elwin
Reply #27 Saturday, February 2, 2002 5:34 PM
Reply #27 Saturday, February 2, 2002 5:34 PM
Dang sraight! I'm with Paxx- to hell with the law, to hell with copyrights. As long as a company has a "bad" or "superior" ATTITUDE, I say screw 'em!
Whoops - there goes the conscience.
Ah, what the hell - it just got in the way of my self justification anyway...
Whoops - there goes the conscience.
Ah, what the hell - it just got in the way of my self justification anyway...
michael havard
Reply #28 Saturday, February 2, 2002 5:53 PM
Reply #28 Saturday, February 2, 2002 5:53 PM
Elwin, again you are missing it. Cranking out a hundred copies of Photoshop and distributing them would indeed deprive Adobe of the potential profit per license. You can't put a monitary value on what AOL is "might be" losing because it can't be defined. For example AOL can't say "You're using clientX" all they can do is create an exploit that they hope will render clientX unusable. If they can't say how many people are definitely using clientX than neither can their sponsors and therefore ad revenue remains the same. While smart arse rethoric makes everyone smile and all and that lovely accusatory I'm-better-than-you-because-I-have-morals makes you feel better, I'm not buying it. Give me a logical argument that makes sense. The AIM user agreement says absolutely nothing about what client has to be used, it doesn't even say "authorized client" it says absolutely nothing that I have seen about how you are allowed to access the network only about what you can do once you have accessed the network. There's no copyright/patent infringement and unlike AOL, Trillian has not misrepresented itself (they state very clearly where they get income from (donation-ware)). Again Elwin show me a law that Trillian is breaking.
paxx
Reply #29 Saturday, February 2, 2002 6:08 PM
Reply #29 Saturday, February 2, 2002 6:08 PM
Exactly Elwin, just as you said it. 
I'm with you too. You harvest what you sow.
I'm with you too. You harvest what you sow.
Garoo
Reply #30 Saturday, February 2, 2002 6:36 PM
Reply #30 Saturday, February 2, 2002 6:36 PM
Michael: as I said, AOL _must_ react because else, advertisers will demand a price drop, and AOL's revenue loss will be very tangible.
On the opposite, Adobe's loss in your example is much less real, because most people who use illegal copies wouldn't buy the real thing anyway. Adobe Photoshop copies don't detract Adobe clients, but only Paint Shop Pro paying customers.
Laws are not in question. If Trillian was undisputably breaking the law, AOL would probably sue. But because it's legal doesn't make it "morally right". Besides, AOL aren't breaking any laws either by changing their servers, are they?
On the opposite, Adobe's loss in your example is much less real, because most people who use illegal copies wouldn't buy the real thing anyway. Adobe Photoshop copies don't detract Adobe clients, but only Paint Shop Pro paying customers.
Laws are not in question. If Trillian was undisputably breaking the law, AOL would probably sue. But because it's legal doesn't make it "morally right". Besides, AOL aren't breaking any laws either by changing their servers, are they?
DavidK
Reply #31 Saturday, February 2, 2002 7:44 PM
Reply #31 Saturday, February 2, 2002 7:44 PM
Frankly, I'm tired of supporting predatory economics. Distribution of information and communication through the net offer far greater benefits to mankind than a corporate profit agenda can be allowed to supress. It's not realistic to expect a change in global corporate ethics anytime soon but I think it's neccessary and overdue.
There is plenty of food in the world to feed everybody, and yet, millions are starving all over the world. The problem is distribution, not the availability.
Global trade agreements, international copyright laws and hardware/software based protection schemes are designed and implemented by what amounts to special interest groups. Looking out for the growth and expansion of markets from the corporate 'penetration' view of market dominance. Small businesses and farmers are left out of the picture, The best interest of the people in many countries is left out of the picture.
I don't have a clue what it will take to change the priorities but somehow, somewhere down the line, the *whole* population of this planet has to become worth enough for governments and businesses to care. As long as it's aimed at securing protection for corporate or political dominance, the people will be a secondary priority (if considered at all).
There is plenty of food in the world to feed everybody, and yet, millions are starving all over the world. The problem is distribution, not the availability.
Global trade agreements, international copyright laws and hardware/software based protection schemes are designed and implemented by what amounts to special interest groups. Looking out for the growth and expansion of markets from the corporate 'penetration' view of market dominance. Small businesses and farmers are left out of the picture, The best interest of the people in many countries is left out of the picture.
I don't have a clue what it will take to change the priorities but somehow, somewhere down the line, the *whole* population of this planet has to become worth enough for governments and businesses to care. As long as it's aimed at securing protection for corporate or political dominance, the people will be a secondary priority (if considered at all).
michael havard
Reply #32 Saturday, February 2, 2002 11:48 PM
Reply #32 Saturday, February 2, 2002 11:48 PM
Garoo, Okay good points.
I do think that Adobe will lose some money (i.e. students, people who might be willing to save for the product, delayed purchase because they have a pirate copy (the "I'll buy it with my tax check" people)). I had not thought of the cost to the other Photo/Art programs out there, but it is a valid point. Thank you for making it.
Statistically yes advertisers could argue the point that 1mill users are on Trillian but AOL could just as easily argue that their is no proof or validity to those numbers and argue it away by claiming market dominance or that they have the situation under control. Or they could imply that these are just "hackers" and brush it away. Likewise advertisers could claim that another million or more are on TIC-TOC or other Oscar enabled clients to attempt to drive the price down, but again without the solid data backing it's just posturing. I don't see that they (AOL) MUST act in this manner, I think they've chosen to but I don't think that they MUST. They've seen the ad market shrinking for awhile now, they've always known that AIM wouldn't pay for itself or even substantially subsidize itself through ad revenue. AIM has always been and will continue to be a portal through which AOL will try to get new AOL service customers. Since I choose to never be such a customer then the ads pushed upon me are wasted as are the ads sent to several million more customers therefore us not seeing those ads still costs AOL nothing.
I do think that Adobe will lose some money (i.e. students, people who might be willing to save for the product, delayed purchase because they have a pirate copy (the "I'll buy it with my tax check" people)). I had not thought of the cost to the other Photo/Art programs out there, but it is a valid point. Thank you for making it.
Statistically yes advertisers could argue the point that 1mill users are on Trillian but AOL could just as easily argue that their is no proof or validity to those numbers and argue it away by claiming market dominance or that they have the situation under control. Or they could imply that these are just "hackers" and brush it away. Likewise advertisers could claim that another million or more are on TIC-TOC or other Oscar enabled clients to attempt to drive the price down, but again without the solid data backing it's just posturing. I don't see that they (AOL) MUST act in this manner, I think they've chosen to but I don't think that they MUST. They've seen the ad market shrinking for awhile now, they've always known that AIM wouldn't pay for itself or even substantially subsidize itself through ad revenue. AIM has always been and will continue to be a portal through which AOL will try to get new AOL service customers. Since I choose to never be such a customer then the ads pushed upon me are wasted as are the ads sent to several million more customers therefore us not seeing those ads still costs AOL nothing.
michael havard
Reply #33 Saturday, February 2, 2002 11:49 PM
Reply #33 Saturday, February 2, 2002 11:49 PM
I think if we are going to argue moral high grounds then it would reflect that AOL has a moral obligation (and legal) to open their network to interoperability. I think it's very hard to argue morals in reference to a company such as AOL/TW. In the end who's moral compass are we going to use to judge this debacle? AOL/TW's? The Moral Majority? The Christian Coalition? Jesse Jackson? Osama's? Legality and morality are sometimes on opposite ends and morality is very subjective, while we might be able to agree "morally" that adultery is wrong or theft is wrong, we might be hard pressed to morally define either term. Adultery to you might be one thing and to me another.
They can of course change the protocol to whatever they want. Likewise Trillian can change to circumvent it ad nauseum. My issue is that AOL is misrepresenting the actions that they are taking and the actions of others. Some of the misrepresentation could be considered fraud and some slander or lible. They have labeled the makers of Trillian as "hackers" and implied that they have done something illegal which could be considered slander as it's soul purpose is to disrepute the company. They are misrepresenting the user agreement made when I signed up for the service, they are misrepresenting the very product that they give away for "free", they are misrepresenting the word "free". See companies in the real world are held to some pretty stiff guidelines for when they mention "free", usually meaning they have to put a nice little "*" next to the word and some fine print defining exactly how you are getting it for free or their definition of "free". AOL seems to have been able to duck that guideline consistantly.
They can of course change the protocol to whatever they want. Likewise Trillian can change to circumvent it ad nauseum. My issue is that AOL is misrepresenting the actions that they are taking and the actions of others. Some of the misrepresentation could be considered fraud and some slander or lible. They have labeled the makers of Trillian as "hackers" and implied that they have done something illegal which could be considered slander as it's soul purpose is to disrepute the company. They are misrepresenting the user agreement made when I signed up for the service, they are misrepresenting the very product that they give away for "free", they are misrepresenting the word "free". See companies in the real world are held to some pretty stiff guidelines for when they mention "free", usually meaning they have to put a nice little "*" next to the word and some fine print defining exactly how you are getting it for free or their definition of "free". AOL seems to have been able to duck that guideline consistantly.
michael havard
Reply #34 Saturday, February 2, 2002 11:49 PM
Reply #34 Saturday, February 2, 2002 11:49 PM
I think people have thrown laws into the equation. Elwin has thrown around Copyright and Patent and EULA and many others have mentioned the same along with DMCA. I find it funny that everyone harps on the fact that it's WRONG for Trillian to use AIM but justifies their use by claiming they use it for another ad-generating service (ala ICQ, or MSN). Morals are subjective I guess. Note that AOL makes no mention of Trillian's hacking of ICQ or the potential security risks involved in connecting with that service or their concern for how it might adversely effect their competitors. Why? Because it doesn't matter, it's all for show anyway. It's all done so that the consumer is given A) a false sense of security 
a negative depiction of an alternate product C) a negative depiction of a competing network (MSN)(as being lax in it's security) D) reinforce AOL brand recognition and further promote it's protocol as "standard". See as long as they can make someone else appear to be the bad guy with labels and false impressions then they would appear to be the good guy.
a negative depiction of an alternate product C) a negative depiction of a competing network (MSN)(as being lax in it's security) D) reinforce AOL brand recognition and further promote it's protocol as "standard". See as long as they can make someone else appear to be the bad guy with labels and false impressions then they would appear to be the good guy.
Garoo
Reply #35 Sunday, February 3, 2002 12:38 PM
Reply #35 Sunday, February 3, 2002 12:38 PM
I don't think anybody has said that it was morally wrong to use Trillian. We only said that it's not morally wrong for AOL to protect their servers.
I don't know the reason why AOL doesn't prevent alternate clients from using ICQ, but there might be one. It seems that they can modify the AIM protocol and, still, let all the old AIM versions work; it may very well be technically impossible with the old versions of ICQ that are around, so maybe "protecting" ICQ servers would require asking the millions of people with legit old ICQ clients to download a new one, and risking losing them.
I don't know the reason why AOL doesn't prevent alternate clients from using ICQ, but there might be one. It seems that they can modify the AIM protocol and, still, let all the old AIM versions work; it may very well be technically impossible with the old versions of ICQ that are around, so maybe "protecting" ICQ servers would require asking the millions of people with legit old ICQ clients to download a new one, and risking losing them.
Garoo
Reply #36 Sunday, February 3, 2002 12:39 PM
Reply #36 Sunday, February 3, 2002 12:39 PM
And as for interoperability of IM's, I guess we all agree that it will have to happen sometime. Thought it's a bit more complicated than that: email interoperability works because each ISP has an email server, so true IM interoperability would ultimately require the same thing with IM servers. Until then, still, Yahoo, MSN et AOL could decide to unite their networks, but still prevent anyone with non-ad-supported software from accessing it. (And anyway, I don't see any remote chance of MS and AOL getting united on anything soon.)
On a side note, I'm surprised the DMCA doesn't make Trillian completely illegal. I'm not American and I don't know that much about DMCA, but from what I read here and there, it seems to me it could be used in this case.
I think it would be very nice if Trillian, as the leader (is it?) in alternate IM clients, could team up with someone to create an alternate, free, open source network. Such as Jabber, right? Are there any public Jabber servers yet?
And finally: I mentioned that I use Trillian for ICQ and not AIM simply because it's a fact. There's no moral or legal or any difference between the two; it's just that I don't personally care for AIM support. And should ICQ support also disappear, I would find another way to communicate with my friends.
On a side note, I'm surprised the DMCA doesn't make Trillian completely illegal. I'm not American and I don't know that much about DMCA, but from what I read here and there, it seems to me it could be used in this case.
I think it would be very nice if Trillian, as the leader (is it?) in alternate IM clients, could team up with someone to create an alternate, free, open source network. Such as Jabber, right? Are there any public Jabber servers yet?
And finally: I mentioned that I use Trillian for ICQ and not AIM simply because it's a fact. There's no moral or legal or any difference between the two; it's just that I don't personally care for AIM support. And should ICQ support also disappear, I would find another way to communicate with my friends.
paxx
Reply #37 Sunday, February 3, 2002 1:25 PM
Reply #37 Sunday, February 3, 2002 1:25 PM
Oh, ICQ will come next, you can be sure of that. It has before, when AOL went to court to prevent Odigo (another alternate IM) from accesing their ICQ and AIM networks. It seems Odigo still exists and still accesses AOL's IM servers, so I guess the court thing didn't work out for AOL. *grin*
WolfwoodX
Reply #38 Sunday, February 3, 2002 3:03 PM
Reply #38 Sunday, February 3, 2002 3:03 PM
This place has cool tips and tricks fot AIM.
http://www.gigahosts.com/~c1003/aimicons/cooltricks.html
http://www.gigahosts.com/~c1003/aimicons/cooltricks.html
RedDragon28023
Reply #39 Monday, February 4, 2002 6:45 AM
Reply #39 Monday, February 4, 2002 6:45 AM
I just don't get AOL's problem I mean I would rather use Trillian the the AIM client becuase I get to have all my IMs on one widow I e-mailed AOL about this here is what they had to tell me
Dear Whitedragon28215,
Hello!My name is Ting from America Online (AOL). As a Customer Care Consultant from the TechMail Department, it is my pleasure to assist you with issues or concerns regarding America Online Services.
I would like to thank you for your comments about this issue. I can understand your feelings and I thank you for voicing your concerns.
I have passed your comments to the appropriate staff members for review.
I assure you America Online wants to understand your feelings and your input is very much appreciated.
For any other suggestions, comments and/or inquiries please feel free to write back and I will be more than happy to assist you.
America Online, Inc.
----------original message----------
I D/Led Trillian becase I wanted to check it out and I love the program I don't see Jabber or any other IM prgrams that support AIM MSN ICQ Yahoo getting heck from AOL
and whats the IE thing about they have Netscape
Dear Whitedragon28215,
Hello!
My name is Ting from America Online (AOL). As a Customer Care Consultant from the TechMail Department, it is my pleasure to assist you with issues or concerns regarding America Online Services.I would like to thank you for your comments about this issue. I can understand your feelings and I thank you for voicing your concerns.
I have passed your comments to the appropriate staff members for review.
I assure you America Online wants to understand your feelings and your input is very much appreciated.
For any other suggestions, comments and/or inquiries please feel free to write back and I will be more than happy to assist you.
America Online, Inc.
----------original message----------
I D/Led Trillian becase I wanted to check it out and I love the program I don't see Jabber or any other IM prgrams that support AIM MSN ICQ Yahoo getting heck from AOL
and whats the IE thing about they have Netscape
RedDragon28023
Reply #40 Monday, February 4, 2002 6:59 AM
Reply #40 Monday, February 4, 2002 6:59 AM
sorry it won't let me post the whole e-mail if you would like to see what I sent them e-mail me
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Saturday, February 2, 2002 8:55 AM
How would you feel if you had to use Outlook to send email to somebody who is using Outlook?