Circumventing Agency Censorship - A Survival Guide

[SANDRO43]

A post today in this section touching on the practices of certain agencies that always interpose themselves in communications, made me think that I should share some of the methods I have used to circumvent their interference with my written communications.

I have no problems with agencies asking for money to divulge personal contact information, i.e. "introduction" agencies, but I intensely dislike those who are out to milk WM of every possible penny, and I don't think our fellow agency-owning members will object to my "essay".

I usually make my desire to switch to direct communications known very early in my correspondence, explaining that I prefer them because they can be longer, include attachments, etc. and avoid mentioning early my monetary reason in order not to be considered "greedy" at the outset : I am quite willing to spend money ON and FOR my woman, not THROUGH and unbenefiting her.

These agencies usually inform you upon registering that the exchange of contact information is prohibited, and that violating this rule will entail cancelling your profile. They never reacted when I blatantly did so, presumably because they seldom want to kill a possible "goose laying the golden eggs".

One other dishonest practice of these agencies is that of sending your correspondent the censored version of your letter, while showing your original one in your "outbox", so that you may not guess whether your attempt was successful, and maybe think your correspondent is dumb.

The success of my methods depends heavily on:

1. The agency censorhip methods/tools.
2. The eagerness of your correspondent to switch to direct communications (and her brightness, too). This in itself is a way to gauge her personality: a few months ago I dumped an English teacher (who therefore had no objective reason to rely on the agency as a go-between) because she did not acknowledge my repeated attempts over a month or so, and eventually told me that the agency solution was more "convenient" for her, an attitude revealing her selfishness IMO.

AGENCY CENSORSHIP METHODS
There are basically two types:

1. Computer-assisted (SW program/s).
2. Human-assisted (agency staff).

A third type might be SW that flags certain "suspect" communications for subsequent human review.

1. Computed-Assisted Censorship
This is comparatively easy to fool. These SW programs scan your text for "compromising" references such as email and website addresses, and their significant components (http, www, @, ., etc.).

1A. Since your email address is usually a required piece of information when registering, they will certanly scan for that. Get another mail address from a different provider (preferably one with an "innocuous" or lesser-known identification, one of mine is @alice.it, another @cheapnet.it) and choose an "innocuous" nickname, say, the brand of your car (Ferrari GTO ), or the name of your favourite sport/hobby/fruit/dish/whatever, that you can safely include in your letter text without raising alarms. 

1B. When you pass it along, don't include Internet specifics like WWW (you can write it as "three w") or @ (you can write it as "at", or "curly/funny A", or use the Russian equivalent "sobaka") or dot (you can write it as "period", "full stop" or use the Russian equivalent "tochka"). 

1C. Alternatively, transliterate your contact information into "escape characters", for instance with the help of the attached HTML page  (download to your disk and load it in your browser when connected). If my address is "sandro@alice.it, it'll become:

Code: [Select]

sanfloriani@alice.itIt will show legibly in a letter, but it will stump most SW.

2. Human-assisted Censorship
This is much more difficult to fool, particularly when your correspondent is not English-independent and requires translation assistance, since agency translators will automatically assume the role of censors, too. However, this every-mail censorship is practical only where small daily volumes are involved, and larger agencies probably rely on SW translators, therefore falling back into Case 1 above. For the rest, you need some sort of "code", and a way of hinting at it:

2A. Steganography for address
The most ancient form of cryptography for hiding a message within a text. The simplest form I used was that of interspersing unnecessary capital letters which, read in sequence, would form my intended message, as in:

"My dear alekSandrA, glad to hear you're Now well anD doing much betteR than befOre, AT times I was very worried About your heaLth and wIshed I Could hElp you with IT. Capital news :-) !!!

2B. Cryptography for phone number
This could be a simple code substituting letters for numbers (A for 1, B for 2,..., L for 0 etc.), to be used in block or interspersed as in 2A above. Not easy to make your correspondent aware of it, though (heree is where some "brightness" on her part is important).

2C. Address in photo
With some agencies, I was able to post my attached photo, which shows the address of ny website in small characters.

 
Hope this can help .

[Kevin]

I don't know who is worst.  The agency that scams or the clients that scams the agencies.

I know this wasn't about my agency but Please don't join my agency.  I prefer to offer honest service to honest people. 


Kevin

[SANDRO43]

Please don't join my agency.  I prefer to offer honest service to honest people.

Have no fear, I have not and shall not if your policy is to milk WM for an indefinite period . I am quite willing to pay for honest service, but maybe we differ on its definition: forcing a client to use services that are no longer necessary is a borderline case at best, IMHO.

Does your service offer include a one-time charge for contact information ?

[Ste]

How about embedding in a jpeg? Or as ID3 tags in an MP3 of a song or a recorded greeting?

[SANDRO43]

How about embedding in a jpeg? Or as ID3 tags in an MP3 of a song or a recorded greeting?

Unpractical, Ste :

- JPEG: how do you to tell her how to "un-embed" ?
- MP3: not usually accepted as agency-mail attachments, photos (JPG) at most, if at all.

[Ste]

Unpractical, Ste :

- JPEG: how do you to tell her how to "un-embed" ?
- MP3: not usually accepted as agency-mail attachments, photos (JPG) at most, if at all.

Well if she's a proper scammer she'll know all the tricks! You IBM boys really ought to start thinking outside the box! Really, "Some day computers will weigh less than seven tons" - which, turned out to be true, I'll give u that....

[SANDRO43]

Well if she's a proper scammer she'll know all the tricks! You IBM boys really ought to start thinking outside the box!

So you'd be willing to act "dishonestly" to acquire a scammer's contact information ? I've been out of IBM's thinking box for the past 10 years, but I don't recall ever having been taught deliberate masochism there .

[Kevin]

For my agency. www.khersongirls.com/rates.php we charge a one time fee for Americans $15 for the required IMBRA background check. Then $35.00 for her contact information which can include, address, email and phone number.  The same rate we charge for a meeting.

We do filter letters and "photo's" for exchange information that violates our policy page www.khersongirls.com/policies.htm and IMBRA. Not because we don't want our client to exchange contact information. Its because this is a business and we need to make enough money to stay open... Note: once you make contact with the lady directly we know longer filter the letters to her from you.   BTW. We hand translate all letters.

My point is, Yes you can bypass the system. But it only hurting the honest agencies when you do. Scam agencies I would say deserve it.

Kevin

[SANDRO43]

For my agency. www.khersongirls.com/rates.php we charge a one time fee for Americans $15 for the required IMBRA background check. Then $35.00 for her contact information which can include, address, email and phone number.  The same rate we charge for a meeting.

We do filter letters and "photo's" for exchange information that violates our policy page www.khersongirls.com/policies.htm and IMBRA. Not because we don't want our client to exchange contact information. Its because this is a business and we need to make enough money to stay open... Note: once you make contact with the lady directly we know longer filter the letters to her from you.   BTW. We hand translate all letters.

I'm glad to hear the above Kevin, I might join you after all (without playing the tricks you ALREADY seem to know about, that would be pointless ).

My point is, Yes you can bypass the system. But it only hurting the honest agencies when you do. Scam agencies I would say deserve it.

The latter were my prime target (consider the name of THIS section). I doubt an honest agency may have to fear from what I outlined, that is a result of the frustration of dealing, for whatever reason, with the other type who'll NEVER disclose contact information.

One doesn't usually pinch the cutlery of a restaurant where he was a satisfied customer.

 

[jb]

It is also among the prime directives in the "Ten Commandments".  Any agency which has a company policy which violates those rules should be avoided.

[Silvia_guy]

that was some good reading. I learned alot from that. 

[Lily]

For my agency. www.khersongirls.com/rates.php we charge a one time fee for Americans $15 for the required IMBRA background check. Then $35.00 for her contact information which can include, address, email and phone number.  The same rate we charge for a meeting.

We do filter letters and "photo's" for exchange information that violates our policy page www.khersongirls.com/policies.htm and IMBRA. Not because we don't want our client to exchange contact information. Its because this is a business and we need to make enough money to stay open... Note: once you make contact with the lady directly we know longer filter the letters to her from you.   BTW. We hand translate all letters.

My point is, Yes you can bypass the system. But it only hurting the honest agencies when you do. Scam agencies I would say deserve it.

Kevin

Kevin, that would be one of reasons why I am reluctant to join most agencies...I don't feel comfortable knowing that the man has to pay some money just to communicate to me without any guarantees. It just hurts me.

I believe contacts should be uninhibited. If people want to switch to an independent contact, they absolutely should be allowed tp do it. Yes, I perfectly understand that every business has to make money, but anyway..everything has its limits.

By the way, guys, when a woman at EM replies to any expression of interest from a man, the next page after her click brings a woman on the man's name, city and zip code..She should be perfectly able to google his name in Internet, find his phone number and make a call right away!  What would you think about that? Have you EM clients ever received an unexpected  phone call like that?

[timothe]

For my agency. www.khersongirls.com/rates.php we charge a one time fee for Americans $15 for the required IMBRA background check. Then $35.00 for her contact information which can include, address, email and phone number.  The same rate we charge for a meeting.

We do filter letters and "photo's" for exchange information that violates our policy page www.khersongirls.com/policies.htm and IMBRA. Not because we don't want our client to exchange contact information. Its because this is a business and we need to make enough money to stay open... Note: once you make contact with the lady directly we know longer filter the letters to her from you.   BTW. We hand translate all letters.

My point is, Yes you can bypass the system. But it only hurting the honest agencies when you do. Scam agencies I would say deserve it.

Kevin

The marriage agency business is sleazy, at best.  If you want customers that value your "honesty", get in an honest business.  Seriously.  Don't cry about how difficult it is to stay in business.  You chose to be in it.  (and chances are, if you got out of the business, you wouldn't be missed that much)

Back in the day, I used to be one of those telemarketers that solicited money by phone for police organizations.  I was really good at it because I could sound like a cop on the phone.  I made good money for my age and I never had to "lie" to my potential customers.  Same thing when I sold cars, except that car sales was slightly more legitimate than phone solicitation.

If you think charging $35 for the contact details of one person, ok.  But on the surface, it looks excessive.

[BillyB]

that was some good reading. I learned alot from that. 

I've got a few tips to get around bad agencies but I stopped giving them out because it almost encourages newbies to do business with bad agencies and beat the system with their newfound knowledge. Most of the time newbies do not beat the system, they get beat.

[timothe]

I've got a few tips to get around bad agencies but I stopped giving them out because it almost encourages newbies to do business with bad agencies and beat the system with their newfound knowledge. Most of the time newbies do not beat the system, they get beat.

I agree with you about giving tips to avoid agencies, Billy, but for a different reason.  When I was dating women from the FSU, I was very adamant about not paying agencies for contact information, so I went to great lengths to avoid it.  I discovered through my own experiences that there is both good and bad in doing so.  The good for me was that I avoided the scammers and the women who had been jaded by keyboard romeos and sex tourists.  The bad for me was that the women I met were not nearly as committed to the idea of leaving their country as those who advertised themselves.  And since my current relationship is by no means a success story yet, I would not feel comfortable suggesting my road to others. 

For many, an "honest" agency or personal service like Jack Bragg may be the only way some men will ever actually get on a plane.  And I guess that's good for the other men who have found love as the result of folks like Kevin, Richard, and Jack.  Perhaps my earlier comments were a little too harsh.