-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
- August 2015
- October 2014
- August 2014
- June 2014
- November 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- October 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
Categories
Meta
Music On the Cheapskate
The New York Times published a disgraceful and very short-sighted article in Friday’s paper, describing how to see live music in the city without paying for it. The writer visited great NYC music spots, clubs that I’ve seen both good friends and great stars in — the Rodeo Bar, the old-time jam at Freddy’s Bar and Backroom here in Brooklyn, Hill Country — and proudly says that he spent only $30 for 27 sets of music at 22 clubs. “Waitresses and tip jars can be avoided, if you can bear the guilt,” he says.
Read that again. This miserable little tightwad is proud of the fact that he sat down in a club whose owners are probably working their asses off trying to keep their heads above water, and are booking live bands out of the love of it, because they could make a lot more money hiring a DJ or installing a karaoke system. And he’s proud of the fact that he makes their lives a little harder, and makes it a little more possible they’ll give up and close down and we’ll lose another live music venue.
And he talks up all these great local bands, great local musicians who are playing for the love of it and hoping that the tip bucket covers a cab ride home so they don’t have to haul two guitars and an amplifier on the subway, and he’s proud that he didn’t put any money in. I wonder how all those musicians felt reading that article in Friday’s paper?
If enough people follow his advice, there will be no music to see in the city. As it is, I’ve lost count of the great live music venues that have closed down. I wonder if he got paid for his article, or if the Times has figured out how to stiff writers out of their checks?
Email Filtering: A Brief Tutorial
My previous post generated a number of questions about how to maintain multiple email addresses. As I said there, using the same email address everywhere is not only an invitation to immense amounts of spam, it’s also a privacy problem, in that it allows cooperating site owners to link your accounts, just as Facebook and its Beacon partners are doing.
In addition to the privacy benefits, using unique email addresses helps counteract phishing attempts: You know that the “Fraud alert on your account” email is garbage if it’s not sent to the unique address you use only with your bank. Plus, if someone starts spamming you, or sells your address without your permission, you can just turn off the email address you gave them. (Note that I’m not talking about setting up multiple email accounts — creating say ten different Hotmail accounts which you then have to remember to check — but multiple addresses that point to a single account.)
I’ve been using unique addresses for more than a decade, managed with procmail, a very powerful Unix mail-filtering program that can do almost anything once you learn its arcane syntax. However, unless you’re a Unix geek in love with regular expressions like [A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4} (which matches an email address) it probably won’t help you. But email has changed a lot in the last decade, and nowadays you can set up multiple email addresses without any technical knowledge at all, for free. Here’s an overview of how to do it.
If you have your own domain (meaning your email is something like myname@myname.com, rather than myname@verizon.com or myname@yahoo.com), the company that hosts it probably offers a way for you to create and manage multiple email addresses. This feature is usually called “aliasing.” It’s not the ability to create multiple mailboxes (almost every major Internet provider offers this, whether or not you have a domain) but the ability to create email addresses that can then be pointed to one or more mailboxes. The idea is that you can have more than one address, but have all the mail to those addresses delivered to a single mailbox. So you can set up “amazon@mydomain.com” and “ebay@mydomain.com” and so on, and have the email delivered into your regular mailbox, but set up filters so that mail with “amazon@mydomain.com” goes into an “Amazon” folder, and so on.
If you don’t have your own domain, you still have options. Consider Gmail, and remember the Secret Of the Plus Sign. Gmail’s spam filtering is unbelievably good; no matter how much spam you get at your Gmail account, you won’t be bothered by it, so you can use it without fear of spam. Gmail also has a pretty powerful filtering system that’s easy to use (not as good as procmail, but not bad, especially if you learn how to use Google’s search operators.)
And the Secret of the Plus Sign is this: my.name@gmail.com and my.name+anyword@gmail.com are the same address. Both will deliver to my.name@gmail.com, but you can set up filters based on what follows the + sign. (This works on many email systems, not just Gmail; try it with your current email address. If your address is myname@somecompany.com, send email to myname+word@somecompany.com and see if it shows up. If so, you’re good to go.)
The bad news is that lots of sites, including Amazon and Facebook, will not accept + signs in email addresses. For those, I use a combination of aliasing and the plus sign. In other words, for amazon, create an alias “amazon@mydomain.com” and point it to “my.name+amazon@gmail.com”.
Another option is available free from Yahoo. Yahoo mail has its drawbacks (inferior spam filtering and an ugly mail interface — if I liked Outlook I would use it) but it does have a feature that’s useful for this purpose. Under Options (top right of your Yahoo mail screen), choose “Mail Options,” select “Spam,” on the left side, and then click the “Set up a disposable address” link. This allows you to select a unique prefix and then allows you to create as many email addresses as you like using that prefix. Mail to those addresses can be delivered to your inbox or to a separate folder. My prefix is “kffile” so that means I could set up “kffile-amazon@yahoo.com” as my email address for Amazon, and have it filtered into an “Amazon” or a “Shopping” folder.
In short, it’s good practice not to use the same email address everywhere on the web, and with the wealth of options available, there is no reason to limit yourself to a single email address. For me, using multiple email addresses has not only meant that my inbox is essentially spam-free (fewer than a dozen spams a month), but also that Facebook’s privacy-invading system passed me by so completely I had to do some investigative work to find it.
Facebook, Beacon and Hysteria
Thanks to the overwhelming hysteria about Facebook’s new “Beacon” program — the one that sends information about what you buy at certain web sites to your profile — it has been difficult or impossible to find any facts about how it actually works. So I did a little experimenting this morning.
First, I went to Amazon and bought a CD by the Carter Family, one I’d been meaning to buy for a while. I was already logged into Facebook. Nothing about my purchase showed up on Facebook.
Then I went to epicurious.com, and created a new account, using the same email address I use for Facebook. This is important; I use site-specific email addresses normally, so the email address I use at Amazon is different from the one I use at Facebook. As soon as I finished the account creation process, an Ajax popup came and went very quickly at the bottom of the screen. And when I went to Facebook, I had this in my personal news feed:
Nothing appeared in my public news feed, thanks to the changes Facebook made after the outcry I suppose. I clicked “Remove” and that was the end of that.
So the answer to the question I’ve been asking for more than a week (“How does Facebook know?”) is not magic, it’s not cookies, it’s just a simple matching of email addresses on your various accounts. And at this point, I have no problem with what they’re doing, since they placed a big honking notice at the top of my personal feed telling me what they were going to do, and requiring me to click “Okay” before they did it. Which I did not, so my privacy remains intact.
I gather that the original version of the program would have placed that notice in my public feed and required me to remove it. That is, indeed, unacceptable behavior, and much worse than what I had originally thought htey were doing. But to my mind they’ve sufficiently addressed the issue, and it’s nice to see that public pressure can accomplish something.
In addition, it’s a lesson once again that the less you spread around your email address, the better off you’ll be. Using site-specific email addresses has saved me a tremendous amount of spam (I know who’s sending it, and can turn off or ignore the address) but it also has a privacy benefit as well.