Thanks
2003-12-15, Mark Doliner
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"--> <h1>My
Two
Cents
on
AOL's
Blockings
</h1> <P>Every
time
an
article
gets
posted
on
Slashdot
about
the
AIM
service
that
AOL
provides,
I
see
the
same
comments
being
made
over
and
over
again.
A
sizable
percentage
of
those
comments
tend
to
be
misinformed,
or
sometimes
just
wrong.
So
here's
my
own
thoughts
and
commentary
on
everything
AOL
has
done
with
the
AIM
service
since
the
announcement
of
TOC.
</P><h3>AOL
Announces
TOC
</h3> <p>In
1998
AOL
announced
that
it
was
going
to
be
providing
an
open
protocol
that
clients
could
use
to
access
the
AIM
service;
this
protocol
became
known
as
TOC.
They
not
only
released
a
specification
of
the
protocol,
they
also
released
a
client
that
used
the
protocol
-
and
released
it
under
the
GPL.
TiK
(as
it
was
called)
was
written
in
tcl/Tk,
and
though
it
wasn't
a
1.0
release,
it
supported
nearly
every
feature
the
TOC
protocol
offered.
</p><p>AOL
gave
the
Open
Source
community
TOC,
and
most
people
seemed
to
think
at
the
time
that
this
was
a
Really
Good
Thing,
and
that
AOL
was
really
trying
to
be
friends
with
us.
AOL
giving
us
TOC
negates
any
argument
about
us
not
having
any
right
to
use
their
servers.
TOC
operates
as
a
proxy
to
the
real
service
-
it's
actually
<i>less
</i> efficient
to
use
TOC
than
it
is
to
use
Oscar.
Before
you
can
claim
that
all
of
these
unofficial
clients
are
a
drain
on
AOL's
resources,
TOC
must
be
dropped.
Unless
if
they
drop
TOC,
we
have
a
right
to
use
those
<p>Since
the
release
of
TOC,
it
has
<i>not
</i> kept
up
with
Oscar,
and
in
fact
has
<i>lost
</i> features
since
its
release.
When
TOC
was
announced,
it
could
not
retrieve
users'
away
messages
or
request
RVOUS
actions
(RVOUS
actions
include
file
transfers,
buddy
icons,
direct
IM,
and
voice
chat).
Since
its
release,
it
has
lost
the
ability
to
search
for
users,
and
features
that
Oscar
has
gained
have
never
been
added
to
TOC.
So
while
TOC
can
still
perform
all
of
the
basic
functionality
that
users
need,
it
is
<i>not
</i> a
valid
alternative
to
<h3>AOL
Blocks
MSN
and
Odigo
</h3> <p>Although
these
two
events
were
separate
they
are
related.
Both
were
competing
IM
systems.
Please
note
the
distinct
difference
between
an
IM
system
and
and
IM
client:
clients
connect
to
a
system.
AOL
has
never
deliberately
blocked
any
client,
even
an
unofficial
one,
from
connecting
to
their
service
(though
they
have
made
modifications
that
occasionally
broke
unofficial
clients).
They
have
only
blocked
competing
systems,
such
as
MSN
and
Odigo,
from
being
able
to
communicate
with
AIM
users.
</p><p>Because
MSN
and
Odigo
both
have
closed
servers
and
closed
clients,
I
don't
think
these
blocks
were
ever
really
looked
at
one
way
or
the
other
by
most
people;
or
at
least,
they
should
not
have
been.
If
MSN
had
"won"
the
battle,
so
to
speak,
it
would
have
been
replacing
one
evil,
AOL,
for
another,
Microsoft
(the
only
reason
I
say
"evil"
is
that
their
servers
are
not
<h3>AOL
and
Time/Warner
Merge
</h3> Everyone
seems
to
think
that
because
AOL
and
Time/Warner
merged
that
AOL
has
to
open
up
their
AIM
service;
the
FCC
said
so,
after
all.
This
has
been
greatly
misread
by
nearly
everyone
except
AOL.
According
to
the
FCC
<ahref="aoltw.pdf">conditions
</a>,
AOL
only
needs
to
open
AIM
to
at
least
one
would-be
competitor
<b>if
</b> they
add
"advanced,
IM-based
high
speed
services",
specifically,
video
conferencing.
Until
they
add
video
conferencing,
they
are
allowed
to
keep
it
as
closed
as
they
want.
</p><h3>AOL
Blocks
Jabber
(and
Gaim)
</h3> <p>Once
again,
AOL
did
not
deliberately
block
Gaim
(a
client);
it
was
a
by-product
of
blocking
Jabber
(a
system).
What's
really
infuriating
about
this,
though,
is
that
Jabber
is
working
towards
openness
and
interoperability,
and
AOL
doesn't
want
any
part
of
it.
Blocks
by
AOL
have
never
been
about
resources
or
making
sure
only
valid
clients
connect;
they
have
<b>always
</b> been
about
cutting
out
competitors'
strongest
link:
the
ability
to
talk
to
AIM/AOL
users.
Without
that
ability,
it
is
highly
unlikely
that
a
competing
IM
system
could
survive
(unless
if
you're
Microsoft,
in
which
case
you
just
put
MSN
Messenger
on
everyone's
desktop).
</p><p>In
any
event,
Jabber
was
blocked.
It's
currently
able
to
connect,
and
the
last
release
of
Gaim
(0.11.0pre10)
is
able
to
use
Oscar
without
any
problems.
If
a
different
checksum
is
asked
for,
we
will
be
setting
up
a
checksum
server
that
will
provide
the
correct
16
bytes,
so
people
will
still
be
able
to
use
Gaim.
This
seems
like
the
only
reasonable
solution
for
Gaim.
Jabber's
current
solution
is
to
require
a
copy
of
the
AIM
binary
at
each
server
installation,
which
is
more
reasonable
since
they
are
a
server
and
not
a
client.
However,
since
it
has
been
more
than
two
weeks
since
the
checksum
value
changed,
I
doubt
that
a
checksum
server
will
be
required.
AOL
had
attempted
to
block
Jabber
based
on
other
parts
of
Oscar
besides
the
checksum,
so
I
think
the
worst
of
it
is
over.
</p><p>So
that's
it.
I
wrote
this
just
to
get
a
couple
points
in,
in
case
any
discussion
about
AIM
ever
happens
again.
Just
to
sum
up,
they
were:
</p><li>It's
not
the
resources
that
are
the
issue;
and
if
it
were,
TOC
would
be
<li>TOC
is
<i>not
</I> a
valid
alternative
to
Oscar
for
a
serious
AIM
client;
<li>AOL
blocks
competing
systems,
and
never
deliberately
blocks
clients
(though
it
may
accidentally
block
them);
<li>the
FCC
did
not
require
AOL
to
open
AIM,
and
even
if
AOL
adds
video
conferencing,
they
don't
have
to
open
it
as
wide
as
people
seem
to
think
they
<li>and
finally,
the
Jabber/Gaim
blocks
are
currently
resolved,
and
we
have
stand-by
solutions
in
case
the
need
arises.
<p><i>--EWarmenhoven,
April
19,
2001
</i></p> <!--#include virtual="/footer.shtml"-->