FC: Spam Arrest does appear to be resorting to... spamming

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 07:03:49 PST

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: USA Patriot II covers not only encryption, but authentication too"

    Previous Politech message:
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-04454.html
    
    ---
    
    From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <sureshat_private>
    To: <declanat_private>
    Subject: Re: Is Spam Arrest resorting to... spamming?
    Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:04:10 +0530
    
    On Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:06 PM [GMT+0530=IST],
    Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> wrote:
    
     > [Neil has been a reliable contributor to Politech for a while on the
     > topic of spam. But naturally I will give Spam Arrest the right of
     > reply, and forward unedited any response they choose to provide.
     > --Declan]
    
    More than one person has reported receiving this - spamarrest has
    apparently sent this letter to _anybody_ who sent mail to a spamarrest
    customer.
    
    This repurposing of addresses is blatant optout spam ... none of the
    people who sent mail to a spamarrest subscriber should be expected to
    receive solicitations from spamarrest.
    
    For what its worth, I was blocking spamarrest's IP as an open relay
    (running an antiquated version of CommuniGate Pro) which had relayed
    spam to our users, since the past several weeks.
    
    So, none of my users will have got this solicitation from them.
    
         srs
    
    ---
    
    rom: Amos Satterlee <asatterleeat_private>
    To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private>
    Subject: RE: Is Spam Arrest resorting to... spamming?
    Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:00:40 -0500
    
    Yeah, I got one, too. Addressed to our Sys Admin account, which is only a
    receive account.
    
    Funny thing is that they didn't send one to my person account. Definitely
    dictionary spam.
    
    Amos
    
    ---
    
    From: David Bolduc <dbolducat_private>
    To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private>
    Subject: RE: Is Spam Arrest resorting to... spamming?
    Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:22:34 -0600
    
    Me too.  I have *no* recollection of having sent an email to a SpamArrest
    customer, or of visiting the SpamArrest site.
    
    ---
    
    From: "Brian Durham" <briandurhamat_private>
    To: <declanat_private>
    Subject: Re: Is Spam Arrest resorting to... spamming?
    Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:15:11 -0600
    
    Declan:
    
    I received that email from Spam Arrest Wednesday - same circumstances.
    
    Best,
    Brian Durham
    
    ---
    
    Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:24:17 -0600
    From: Kenneth Loafman <loafmanat_private>
    To: declanat_private
    Cc: politechat_private, supportat_private, prat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: Is Spam Arrest resorting to... spamming?
    
    As a matter of fact they are spamming.  I got one in the mail this 
    morning.  I do remember responding to a SpamArrest customer, but that does 
    not give SpamArrest itself permission to contact me.
    
    Promptly reported to SpamCop.
    
    ...Ken
    
    ---
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
    Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Feb 13 2003 - 07:19:29 PST