[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: SPAM (no Audi content)
Sorry in advance for the non-audi BW, but this may be of some interest. The note below was written by a co-worker to
another email reflector I'm on (SCSI standards working group) which has been besieged by SPAM of late. That group
collectively decided to take the "don't get mad, get even" approach and bombard the source with email and phone calls
requesting removal from their list. As you can see from below, this is not a wise tactic. The q-list has actually been
more rational about this, funny that a bunch of car nuts are more sophisticated than a group of serious computer nerds.
So, just keep hitting that delete key, it is the best and safest response.
Sorry again for the BW,
"Tom Carlson" <email@example.com> on 07/21/98 10:33:11 AM
cc: Harlan Andrews <firstname.lastname@example.org> (bcc: Matt Rooke/Orch/SJ/FCPA/Fujitsu)
Subject: Re: net-vest SPAM
>* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (email@example.com), posted by:
>* "Tom Carlson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Hello Harlan (and other annoy-ees),
>According to our internal person handling spams, you must NOT respond to >these solicitations, even to "remove"
yourself. All you are doing is
>giving them your real email address since they reached you via the reflector.
>Regarding the "email bill", it is a liar's reference to a real item only >loosely related to the subject. Here's an
>extract from our internal "spam person", about this "email bill":
>This is an attempt to pull the wool over your eyes, as it's related to a bid >to legitimize spam. S 1618 is the
>"anti-slamming" bill that passed the Senate 99-0 in May, and its main purpose >was to prevent phone companies from
>changing your long-distance carrier without your knowledge. Two senators, >Murkowski and Torricelli, added a rider to
>bill that would establish guidelines for unsolicited commercial email. The >main provisions are that the spammers would
>have to provide a legitimate reply address and allow the recipient to have >his email address removed from their
>lists. This might sound good, but in the view of some, ( see >http://www.cauce.org), this merely legitimizes the
>of sending spam in the first place, when the brunt of the cost is borne by >the ISPs and hence their customers, by
>millions of potential spammers a legal first shot at your email address (not >to mention that you would be sending out
>million remove requests to all these people). The bill is in the House right >now, as HR 3888. Since it has not yet
>passed the House, it is not yet law, so if spammers add lines to their email >claiming it complies with "Federal
>guidelines" on commercial email, it is for the present time meaningless.
>Fujitsu Computer Products of America
>P.S., If you want to protect your phone number, don't use their toll-free >number. Caller-ID cannot be blocked on
>toll-free numbers. And in case you've ever tried, you cannot locate a >company [that does not want to be found] with
>only a PO box address. -tc
>P.P.S., If my facts are wrong, PLEASE let me know! My ego will recover. -tc
>* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
>* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to email@example.com