Facebook plans to resume address, phone sharing

Despite congressional criticism, Facebook is planning to resume the aborted rollout of a feature that allowed the optional sharing of addresses and mobile phone numbers.


Facebook said in a letter (PDF) released today that it is evaluating different ways to "enhance user control" over information sharing that would go into effect "once the feature is re-enabled."


The social-networking site encountered some criticism in January after announcing the feature, which allowed applications to request permission to access user information. Only if the user clicked "Allow" was information shared.


Only three days after announcing the platform update, Facebook voluntarily delayed it, with Douglas Purdy writing that "we are making changes to help ensure you only share this information when you intend to do so."


Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas), who have a history of assailing tech companies including Apple and Google over perceived data transfer snafus, suggested in a letter (PDF) on February 2 that the pop-up permissions window was insufficient "given the sensitivity of personal addresses and mobile phone numbers compared to other information users provide Facebook."


Facebook's response, prepared by Marne Levine, vice president for global public policy, stressed that applications that run on the Facebook platform have long had the ability to ask for information. For example, Levine wrote, "a photo-printing application that prints photos for a user requests permission specifically to access a user's photo; a social-gaming application that allows users to play a game with his or her friends requests permission to access the user' friends list."


In last month's announcement that dealt with contact information, Levine wrote, "we allowed applications to ask users for that information, through a permissions screen...that provided clear and conspicuous notice to the user regarding what information the application is seeking."
And in response to the politicians' point about minors, Levine said that anyone under 13 is prohibited from using Facebook, and the company is "actively considering" whether to allow applications to request information from even older minors.


Markey said in a statement today that he's not satisfied with Facebook's response.
"I don't believe that applications on Facebook should get this information from teens, and I encourage Facebook to wall off access to teen's contact information if they enable this new feature," Markey said. "Facebook has indicated that the feature is still a work in progress, and I will continue to monitor the situation closely to ensure that sensitive personal user data, especially those belonging to children and teenagers, are protected."


Separately, Facebook announced last week that it's asking for comments on a proposed revamp of its privacy policy that's meant to make it easier to understand.


Source: http://news.cnet.com/

There's no such thing as 'social media revolution'

There seems to be a contingent out there that analyzes each of the globe's various political conflicts and attempts to figure out, through plenty of speculation and the occasional Wikipedia look-ups of far-flung sovereignties, which uprising will mark the first true "social media revolution."


A dictator toppled by Twitter or ousted through the efforts of a Facebook group? It's an enticing idea, particularly for those who are in the business of social media and have a personal stake of sorts in tallying each instance of social media's global value making headlines. Twitter punditry this week has been peppered with speculation about whether upheaval in Tunisia or the subsequent anti-government protests in Egypt might amount to the "first" true revolution spawned by social media. But this just isn't the right way to measure things: the occurrence of a "social media revolution," at this point, should be neither noteworthy nor remarkable. If a dictator is overthrown or a government ousted, it would be notable if Facebook or Twitter weren't used.


That's because social media is a part of the world we live in and has become such a crucial form of communication that it will factor into any political movement nearly anywhere in the world. In other words, the use of Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube should not be what's worth talking about. At this point, it takes away from the substance of the revolution (or lack thereof) itself.


This sort of rhetoric has been going on for nearly two years when an anti-government uprising in Iran swelled up through Twitter and, as a result of traditional media crackdowns, became the primary medium in which much of the world knew about what was going on in the Islamic nation. The activists' efforts ultimately had far less impact on the government than many of the breathless Twitter observers expected, and for too many of them it's now known as the movement in which everyone tinted their Twitter profile photos with green as a sign of solidarity (which now seems awfully passive). This, alas, wasn't "the social media revolution." And so the pundits moved on.


So let's look at the basic numbers. Facebook has more than 600 million users around the world, an inarguable lock on the mainstream in much of the world and significant penetration even in the countries where it doesn't have as much reach. Twitter is about one-third its size, though its most active users tend to be more in the vein of newshounds and culture fans than FarmVille players and vacation photo swappers--which may be the reason why the smaller Twitter is as important, if not more so, than Facebook in political activism. Both social media services are actively looking to expand their reach in developing countries, particularly Facebook, which has launched mobile sites and applications geared to lower-end cell phones and slower connections.
The truth is that smaller elements of "social media revolution" have been all around us already for over half a decade--even in our own, comparatively humdrum political system in which "revolution" means a switch in the partisan balance of a governing body accompanied by plenty of red-and-blue news-ticker graphics on cable networks. George Allen, a Republican senator from Virginia, was in a tight race for win re-election in 2006 until a video from a campaign rally surfaced on YouTube in which he called one of his opponent's campaign staff volunteers by a bizarre epithet that turned out to be a racial slur of sorts. The video went viral, Allen lost, and his "macaca moment" has been widely highlighted as the source of his downfall--in spite of the presence of countless strategists, publicists, and glossy campaign ads, social media's power prevailed.


Yes, social media can lead to the improbable rise of leaders who otherwise might never have had a shot. Without Meetup and the readership of liberal blogs, former Vermont governor Howard Dean might never had had a shot at the Democratic presidential nomination (which, of course, he lost). In 2008, Barack Obama's campaign team's digital savviness was a crucial component in the candidate's popularity among young voters who heavily favored him at the polls. Two years after Obama's inauguration, these things should no longer surprise us--nor should be we be surprised that, yes, social media is a vital instrument in political change all over the world.


That's the way things are in an age full of widely accessible yet largely uncontrolled media, in which the barrier to entry for any individual has been vastly lowered and the potential power of an organized mass can impact longstanding establishments. These technological developments have been groundbreaking. But they are not new. And "revolutionaries," whoever they may be, will use social media as an expanded set of tools for the tasks that have always been and remain the most crucial to activists: amassing support, communicating with like-minded people, and spreading the word. The tactics haven't changed. It's just that the available channels of communication have expanded.


Where it does get interesting, social media-wise, is where and when governments choose to crack down. On Tuesday evening, Twitter finally confirmed that Egypt was blocking access to its service after initially refusing to comment on the matter directly, but there were no reports on attempts to control Facebook or any other grassroots organization tool. This sort of thing provides some insight into what a government sees as its biggest digital threats and how it attempts to control and dissuade opposition forces. But the real focus ought to be on what's being said. The real meat of a political uprising is the message itself, and hype about digital media's impact on it all should be well enough accepted by now that it shouldn't take over the limelight.
And, should that successful "social media revolution" come along, I hope the digerati gives the successful activists some credit: If they topple a dictator, the real reason isn't that Facebook Groups made it possible for them to organize or because they generated a clever Twitter hashtag. Social media has changed the world, but by no means does it provide a substitute for the human energy and willpower that can bring down governments and cause global reverberations. Let's focus on understanding what really happens.


Besides, if you're keeping a scorecard for social media, you might want to note that, 600 million Facebook users later, it's already won.




Source: http://news.cnet.com/

I Don't Want Wall Street in My Social Network

If LinkedIn goes public, will I suddenly be smacked with an onslaught of spam, bludgeoned by pop-ups or, even worse, have my personal information auctioned off to the highest bidder? If you don't think that's a possibility, then you don't understand why Facebook and Groupon have been christened social networking's most valuable sites. In a word: advertising.



As someone who sees value in at least some social networking sites, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with all the attention that Wall Street suddenly is directing toward this sector.

For the past few weeks, we've been bombarded with stories about the potential for various social networking companies to raise ridiculous sums of money in public stock offerings. Naturally, Facebook, the undisputed ruler of the social networking realm, has garnered the most headlines, along with the highest estimated valuation at US$50 billion.

Groupon, the purveyor of discount coupons for local businesses, is worth $15 billion, making it the second most valuable social networking site, according to Wall Street estimates.

Source: http://www.technewsworld.com

I find fault with these numbers for several reasons, starting with the fact that my two favorite social networking sites -- LinkedIn and Twitter -- have been deemed to be worth a mere $2 billion and $3.7 billion, respectively.

The Future of Social Networking

Actually, I have no vested interest -- financially, emotionally or otherwise -- in how much any particular social networking site is judged to be worth. As a technology journalist, however, I am extremely interested in how all this talk of multibillion dollar payoffs will impact the future of social networking.

Twitter and LinkedIn are my favorite social networks because I find them to be effective business tools. LinkedIn helps me keep in contact with past business associates in a way that no contact list ever could. Whenever my connections update their profiles, I know where they are and what they're doing, and I always have an easy way of reaching them.

I know Facebook does the same thing for old friends, but Facebook also has a lot of, let's just call it "juvenile," stuff floating around the site that I'd rather not get involved in. So, I find other ways of staying in touch with friends.

There is one thing I don't like about LinkedIn: the way some people join special interest groups -- such as the Media, Advertising and Journalism Jobs Network that I belong to -- in order to pepper other members with emails about their resume writing services or Internet-based business opportunities.

I have to confess to using Twitter to promote this column, but that feed only goes to people who have chosen to follow me, which means they presumably are interested in what I have to say.

While I get more commercial messages through LinkedIn than I would like, I find them fairly easy to ignore and even easier to delete. I fear that might change, however, if LinkedIn goes public and is forced to start generating sufficient revenue to satisfy the shareholders.

Selling User Info to the Highest Bidder

Will I suddenly be smacked with an onslaught of spam, bludgeoned by pop-ups or, even worse, have my personal information auctioned off to the highest bidder?

If you don't think that's a possibility, then you don't understand why Facebook and Groupon have been christened social networking's most valuable sites.

Wall Street obviously sees advertising as the primary way of making money in this arena, and Facebook and Groupon currently are in a better position than any of the other networks to turn large numbers of their users into ad consumers.

Groupon has become so popular in some cities that it has generated complaints from businesses that found themselves confronted with more customers than they could handle -- and actually losing money in the process -- after issuing Groupon coupons.

Though it continues to wrestle with privacy issues, Facebook has maintained something that all Internet-based advertisers covet: a large, loyal user base. The social games that are becoming increasingly popular features of Facebook are enticing users to spend more time on the site, making it even more appealing to advertisers.

While social networks seem like ideal platforms for generating ad revenue, I question the validity of the valuations currently being attached to these sites. I'm skeptical mainly because the primary source of these valuations is Goldman Sachs -- the same Goldman Sachs that the SEC recently charged with committing multiple acts of fraud in connection with the nationwide mortgage crisis.

I Don't Trust Goldman Sachs

Goldman established the value for Facebook after investing $450 million in the company and securing an agreement to offer shares of Facebook to a select group of its most wealthy clients while the company remains private. This deal also gives Goldman the inside track on being the investment bank that handles what is expected to be an eventual Facebook IPO. Goldman also is lobbying to play the same role when Groupon goes public.

In the case of the private Facebook stock offering, Goldman expects to sell shares to investors who pony up a minimum of $2 million each. It would then put that money into a special fund that it manages on behalf of those clients. This type of fund, known as a "special purpose vehicle," was used by Enron before that once high-flying energy company imploded in a major financial  scandal in the 1990s.

Soon after word of this arrangement became public, Goldman announced that it had decided to limit the offering of privately traded Facebook shares to non-U.S. clients. The SEC has neither confirmed nor denied that it questioned this deal, but I find it hard to believe that Goldman didn't believe it was about to come under some new regulatory scrutiny.

Beyond my distrust of Goldman Sachs, I don't like the idea of social networking companies going public, at least at this time, because that typically turns out to be the first step in an industry shakeout. Remember when AOL and then Yahoo were the hottest names in the tech industry?

I don't see Facebook crashing and burning under the weight of an IPO, but Groupon, which already has many competitors, could be vulnerable. A company like LinkedIn also could find itself in trouble if it were to start working harder to satisfy shareholders than users.

I'd just hate to see companies that could potentially employ a lot of people for a long time -- and possibly create technology that could help other companies -- flame out prematurely just so a handful Wall Street bankers can cash a few more fat bonus checks. I saw enough of that when the dot-com bubble was deflating.

Facebook Drops Another 'P' Bomb

Facebook no doubt hoped to minimize the repercussions from its latest privacy change by announcing it late on Friday, but there could be a heavier blowback from its move than the company anticipated. "Many [users] won't realize that they have given permission for their phone numbers to be gathered," said Appitalism.com CEO Simon Buckingham. When they do, he predicted, hell is going to break loose.


Facebook dropped a privacy bombshell on an unsuspecting user base before the start of the holiday weekend: Going forward, it will make a user's address and mobile phone number accessible as part of the User Graph object. That means that users' addresses and mobile numbers are now available to third party developers of such apps as, say, FarmVille.


Facebook acknowledged it was dealing with "sensitive information" in the blog post making the announcement. For that reason, it created a special opt-in permission requirement for the phone number and address to be explicitly granted to the application developer  through Facebook's standard permissions dialog.


It also pointed out that these permissions only provide access to a user's address and mobile phone number -- not to friends' addresses or mobile phone numbers.


Privacy Uproar


Privacy and security  advocates, not surprisingly, were unimpressed by Facebook's nod to consumers with its opt-in form.


"It is a consent requirement, but the notice is so confusing to users it makes it seem as though the information is necessary for the application to work," Marc Rotenberg, EPIC executive director, told MacNewsWorld. "Then there is the very real risk that over time Facebook will change the default opt-in to opt-out. After all it has made so many changes to its privacy policy, why not this one too at some point?"


Facebook did not respond to MacNewsWorld's request for comment in time for publication.


As for Facebook's decision to grant developers this information, Rotenberg expressed more scorn.


In general, granting information to third parties has become a very slippery slope, with little attention being paid to what they are using it for.


"Increasingly, it is being used for purposes other than app development," noted Rotenberg, "such as advertising or behavioral targeting."


Security Threat


Facebook's decision will leave users open to security threats by rogue developers, suggested Graham Cluley of Internet security research firm Sophos in a blog post.


"Facebook is already plagued by rogue applications that post spam links to users' walls, and point users to survey scams that earn them commission -- and even sometimes trick users into handing over their cellphone numbers to sign them up for a premium rate service," he wrote.


Shady app developers will find it easier to gather this data now that Facebook has legitimatized it, he continued, predicting an increase in identity theft as a consequence of making this and other data available on Facebook.


Developers are also at risk with this system, pointed out Douglas Karr, founder of DK New Media and author of Corporate Blogging for Dummies.


"Since this data isn't 'scrubbed' against national do not call and do not mail data, Facebook may be putting application developers in a precarious, dangerous position if the data is somehow misused," he said.


Another Backlash


With so many ways this decision could go wrong, there is a significant likelihood of a backlash, predicted Simon Buckingham, CEO and founder of Appitalism.com. "This is a major change for users, and many won't realize that they have given permission for their phone numbers to be gathered."


When they do, he said, hell is going to break loose. "With 600 million members, Facebook needs to err on the side of caution. This type of information is sensitive, and it is almost guaranteed that a lot of users will be unhappy about its disclosure."


Source: http://www.technewsworld.com

Why Facebook Messages Are Lethal?

Many a times, Facebook has taken credit for its new Messaging service. The media is just ranting about this cool new feature, which was primarily a result of a conflict of interests between Google and Facebook. However, certain features of the new messaging service will prove problematic for you… How so? Read on:


Not Much of an Openness


Yeah, we know that MS Office is the dominant productivity suite in the market. However, Facebook is also trying to exclude all others, in an attempt to be the first choice of millions of consumers. The Executive in the Office Group wrote, “I’m really excited about being able to make it even easier for people to use Office to access and share information across different devices, networks and platforms.”


Openness naturally demands an easy access regardless of the hardware and software based obstacles.


Limited Interoperability


Facebook’s tight integration with the Microsoft Office Suite may not be that much tight. Office is good for interoperability with other people, but there are million others who’re using Open Office and LibreOffice. What about them?


Facebook does have friendly relationships with Microsoft. There’s no denying to it, because we’ve see the Bing and Facebook collaboration. However, Facebook is mostly focusing on Microsoft Office through its messaging service, which is not good. The social media needs to open its doors for other corporate sectors as well. Facebook users will have to stick to Microsoft Office IF they need exchange documents online.




Limited Choice Criterion


Microsoft likes to protect and lock its clients, within a whirlwind of glazy features. Apple likes to do the same thing, it is too exclusive. So what impact does it have on Facebook? To be honest, the social media platform’s continuing partnership with Microsoft will eventually turn it into a walled garden sort of thing. People won’t be able to use the software that’s out of the box….


Source: http://www.technews.org/

Facebook Faces Loss of Its Privacy

Facebook has hit the big time, and that means the company that's famous for annoying users by compromising their privacy will have to swallow a bit of its own medicine. With investors expected to number more than 499 by the end of this year, Facebook will be forced to reveal its financial secrets to comply with SEC regulations and is likely headed for an initial public offering by mid-2012.




Top social network Facebook inadvertently revealed that it is preparing to go public with its financial data sometime in 2012. Facebook expects its investor population to exceed 499 this year, it reportedly states in a private placement document leaked to a number of media outlets from Goldman Sachs, which would compel it to disclose tons of financial information.


Per SEC rules, companies have to report financial data within 120 days of the end of the year they reach 500 investors.


Investor interest in Facebook has grown with stepped-up private trading by former employees and early investors on websites such as SharesPost and SecondMarket. On Monday, Goldman Sachs announced it made a US$500 million investment in Facebook, which pegged Facebook's value at $50 billion.


The leaked document -- hand-delivered to potential Goldman investors on Thursday -- reportedly reveals details about Facebook's earnings, its plans for an initial public offering (IPO) and the SEC's investigation of Facebook's total investor population.


One nifty jewel from the document: Facebook's net income for the first nine months of last year was $355 million.


Facebook did not respond to the E-Commerce Times' request for comments by press time.




Investor Frenzy for Social Networking


Facebook's value just last year was $10 billion. This mammoth increase in value over the past year gives it and its exclusive group of investors the incentive to go into public trading. The negative side of this is the reporting of revenue, profits or losses and executive compensation -- not to mention getting grilled on Wall Street.


Social networking companies have been receiving tons of investor interest recently. Information surfaced this week that LinkedIn, a business networking site, has begun talks with bankers about an impending IPO. Last month, Twitter recently received $200 million in investment dollars from the Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.




What Does an IPO Mean for Facebook?


The growth in investors and a potential IPO could change the face of Facebook. "It means that Facebook and its investors want to take advantage of the amazing momentum the company has generated," Azita Arvani, principal of the Arvani Group, told the E-Commerce Times. "Social networking is hot, and Facebook is the king of that hot market right now. They can get a rich evaluation, and who knows what could happen later?"


Facebook's prominence and popularity dwarfs every other social site.


"Social networking sites such as LinkedIn will work hard to shine in the shadow of Facebook and get investments or seriously consider IPO options," said Arvani. "Let's hope it is not another bubble, because things are moving a bit too fast for logic to kick in."




No Privacy for Facebook


A Facebook IPO will have an impact on Facebook's freewheeling culture.


"What it means, bottom line, is more accountability -- more accountability to its investors, more accountability to its customers and to Wall Street, including the financial analysts," Laura DiDio, principal analyst at ITIC, told the E-Commerce Times.


"One of the reasons a company will stay private is so they don't have to open the kimono and reveal info about their financial dealings. Guess what -- there will be transparency," she added.


Facebook looks like a sound investment even in a tough economy.


"A Facebook IPO in 2012 is good timing," said DiDio. "They show no evidence of imploding."


That said, the company will have to dress itself up to walk with the major players.


"They have to manage their tremendous growth and popularity. There are been issues about privacy -- they will have to get a handle on it," said DiDio.


"As much of a wonderkid Zuckerberg is, he's still young and has things to learn. Going public will keep him more accountable. He will be in the big leagues -- like Steve Jobs, or Larry and Sergey at Google."


Source: http://www.ecommercetimes.com

Location-Based Services Are Becoming Social Network Outcasts

If you go on the Foursquare site, you'll learn that mayor of a certain location is supposed to be entitled to special services and discounts from that business. The problem is, in most cases, Foursquare has neglected to let the business owner in on the game -- meaning its badges and titles, no matter how lofty they sound, are completely worthless.



All the recent news about Facebook -- from its founder being named Time magazine's Person of the Year to Goldman Sachs placing a US$450 million bet on its future profitability -- makes it clear that social networking platforms are hot commodities.


It's also clear, however, that not all social networking platforms are created equal. So, while Facebook continues to attract hordes of new users and piles of cash from investment bankers, platforms such as Foursquare and Gowalla -- known generically as "location-based services" -- are living a lonelier existence.


Location-based services are still attracting a fair amount of media attention. What they aren't attracting is users -- at least not in any appreciable numbers when compared with the likes of Facebook and Twitter -- and this failure to connect with the masses could soon force location-based services into extinction.



Few Regular Users


To get an idea of how dire the situation is for these platforms, consider some numbers. To date, only 4 percent of Americans have used a location-based service, and only 1 percent use them as often as once a week, according to Forrester.


When they launched, location-based services promised to take social networking to the next level, by allowing users to "check in" at businesses they patronize frequently -- restaurants, coffee shops, stores, etc. Checking in is supposed to allow your online friends to know where you are, and perhaps entice them to join you for some real-world socializing. It's also supposed to give people a way of discovering exciting new places to shop and mingle by tracking where their friends are checking in.


That pitch earned these sites a good amount of media coverage and a fair number of early adopters. Now, however, the luster associated with location-based services is waning, and it's largely because that early vision of extending virtual social networks into the real world has not materialized.


In the final week of 2010 -- specifically from December 26 to January 2 -- the top 10 venues frequented by Foursquare users recorded a total of slightly more than 926,000 check-ins, according to Trendrr, a social media business intelligence service that compiles a weekly tally of Foursquare check-ins for publication on Advertising Age.


I contacted Matt Carmichael, director of information projects at Advertising Age, to confirm that the figures reflected check-ins across the entire country, and not just in selected metropolitan areas. When Carmichael said they were indeed national figures, my doubts about the future viability of location-based services deepened.



The Top 10 Foursquare Venues


The top 10 locations could muster only 926,000 check-ins for an entire week? Twitter records more than 65 million tweets every single day.


A quick look at the top 10 Foursqaure venues also blows holes in the theory that location-based services will help people find exciting new places to visit. Every venue on the list is a national chain -- starting with Starbucks (Nasdaq: SBUX), which recorded 146,865 check-ins for the week.


Barnes & Noble (NYSE: BKS) attracted 10,416 Foursquare enthusiasts to earn the 10th spot on the list. Sprinkled in between were Target, Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT), McDonald's (NYSE: MCD), the Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) Store, Best Buy (NYSE: BBY), Burger King, Costco (Nasdaq: COST) and Ikea.


It's easy to see why people aren't tossing aside their keyboards and rushing out to meet their friends at these places. It's also easy to see why even some people who describe themselves as avid social media users are questioning the value of location-based services.


"I'm a compulsive user of Foursquare, but I have to admit I'm not completely sure why I'm doing it," Neil McIntosh, editor of The Wall Street Journal's European website confessed while interviewing Dennis Crowley, a Foursquare cofounder.


Crowley responded that Foursquare, when used properly, could be considered the digital equivalent of a loyalty card, allowing users to earn discounts or free goods and services at businesses they patronize on a regular basis.


Badges and Titles Are Worthless


There's a major flaw in that theory, however, and it's one of several reasons I think Foursquare and its peers can't last for the long term -- at least not without making some major changes.


Foursquare's big shortcoming is this: It gives users badges for checking into particular venues a certain number of times. It even declares the Foursquare user who checks into a venue the most the "mayor" of that location.


If you go on the Foursquare site, you'll learn that mayor of a certain location is supposed to be entitled to special services and discounts from that business. The problem is, in most cases, Foursquare has neglected to let the business owner in on the game -- meaning its badges and titles, no matter how lofty they sound, are completely worthless.


I found myself literally laughing out loud while reading a recent letter to an advice column in Wired magazine in which a Foursquare user wanted to know if it was OK to ask the owner of a local cafe for some freebies after having "spent a fortune" to become mayor of that location.


The user was advised to tread lightly for fear of being transformed from "that nice guy who's always here to that pushy guy whose sense of entitlement deserves its own ZIP code."


If Foursquare operated its business properly, its users wouldn't have to fear being labeled at all. Foursquare would figure out a way to work out deals with merchants beforehand to ensure that its badges, titles, and whatever it decided to bestow on its members had some real value.


The Right Mix of Enticements


Carmichael, the Advertising Age project director, stated it another way: "Location-based services need to figure out the right mix of enticements for the users if they're going to achieve the kind of wide audience and habit-forming behavior needed to succeed. Simply sharing your whereabouts probably won't do it. Connecting consumers and savings will be the key."


This sounds like a fairly simple formula, and one that Crowley said Foursquare was starting to use. Still, there are two reasons it may be too late for this particular form of social networking to really catch on.


First, most technology trends can only support one or two major players. In the social networking realm, Facebook and Twitter already have captured those spots, with Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) and Apple looking like the most-likely candidates to move in if one of the top two should falter.


Second, Facebook and Twitter have started adding location-based features of their own, and Facebook in particular understands the dynamics of forming partnerships with businesses. That's a skill the operators of platforms like Foursquare and Gowalla have yet to locate -- and unless they do so quickly, they will find them banished from the circle of real social media players.


Source: http://www.technewsworld.com

How to check if an email address exists without sending an email?

We have all been doing email address validation for a very long time to make sure that the email is correctly formatted. This is to avoid users entering wrongly formatted email address but still they can accidentally give us a wrong email address.

Example of a correctly formatted email address but still wrong:

mailbox.does.not.exist@gmail.com [VALID email fromat but still not correct]

Above case specifically happens when you take important customer email on phone and you type in the wrong email. So is there a QUICK solution to really check the email without sending a test message to the user? Yes.

The solution

A quick & simple check below can be implemented in most programming language including PHP, Python etc. It relies on using the same SMTP which is used to send emails.

To check if user entered email mailbox.does.not.exist@reddit.com really exists go through the following in command prompt.

First - Find mail exchanger of reddit.com

COMMAND:

nslookup - q=mx reddit.com

RESPONSE:

reddit.com      MX preference = 10, mail exchanger = mail.reddit.com

mail.reddit.com internet address = 208.96.53.70

Second - Connect to mail server mail.reddit.com

COMMAND:

telnet mail.reddit.com 25

RESPONSE:

220 mail.reddit.com ESMTP Postfix NO UCE NO UEMA  C=US L=CA Unsolicated electronic mail advertisements strictly prohibited, subject to fine under CA law CBPC 17538.45.  This electronic mail service provider’s equipment is located in the State of California.  See http://www.reddit.com/static/inbound-email-policy.html for more information.

COMMAND:

helo hi

RESPONSE:

250 mail.reddit.com

COMMAND:

mail from: youremail@gmail.com

RESPONSE:

250 2.1.0 Ok

COMMAND:

rcpt to: mailbox.does.not.exist@reddit.com

RESPONSE:

550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown in local recipient table

COMMAND:

quit

RESPONSE:

221 2.0.0 Bye

NOTES:

1) the 550 response indicates that the email address is not valid and you have caught a valid but wrong email address. This code can be on the server and called on AJAX when user tabs out of the email field.  The entire check will take less than 2 seconds to run and you can make sure that the email is correct.

2) If email was present the server will respond with a 250 instead of 550

3) There are certain servers with a CATCH ALL email and this means all email address are accepted as valid on their servers (RARE but some servers do have this setting).

4) Please do not use this method to continuously to check for availablity ofgmail / yahoo / msn accounts etc as this may cause your IP to be added to a blacklist.  

5) This is to supplement the standard email address javascript validation. 

Republished from http://www.webdigi.co.uk