Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:44:33 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dave Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IP and Politech] "Permission-based email marketers" confused about CAN SPAM law [sp]
Sigh. "Permission-based email marketers" is merely a fancy term for "spammers".
As in, for example:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Uptilt.com? Ah, yes. Spammers. Already noted on at least these lists of spammer domains:
http://obob.manilasites.com/ http://geocities.com/filterlists/domainnames.txt http://www.river.com/ops/spam/bad-domains.txt http://www.spamblocked.com/killfile http://www.tls.cena.fr/%7Eboubaker/JunkTrap/domains.blacklist http://www.znet.com/blocked-domains.html
A bit of discussion about their spamming operation:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=uptilt.com&btnG=Google+Search&meta=group%3Dnews.admin.net-abuse.email
Some example sightings of spam from them:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=uptilt.com+group:news.admin.net-abuse.sightings&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=news.admin.net-abuse.sightings&safe=off&sa=G&scoring=d
The most recent spam from them (from the link just above): January 28, 2004:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=uptilt.com+group:news.admin.net-abuse.sightings&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=news.admin.net-abuse.sightings&safe=off&scoring=d&selm=20040129225721.918CD1BDE7B%40kalyani.oryx.com&rnum=1
Some example sightings of spam from one of their other domains (up0.net):
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=up0.net&btnG=Google+Search&meta=group%3Dnews.admin.net-abuse.sightings
Admits renting lists of addresses (and then trying to scrub them) in this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00003.html
And so on.
Oh, they might very well comply with YOU-CAN-SPAM: don't know, don't care. What I care about is that they have a long history of spamming and have thus earned permanent blocking in all mail systems under my control.
---Rsk
---
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:18:14 -0800 To: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Brian W. Antoine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Politech] "Permission-based email marketers" confused about CAN SPAM law [sp]
At 07:42 AM 1/28/04, you wrote:
> The federal CAN-SPAM law took effect on January 1, and is intended to curb the proliferation of unsolicited emails. CAN-SPAM contains requirements that must be met by all mailers whether an email message is unsolicited or permission based. Companies sending unsolicited emails must include a clear notice that the message being sent is an advertisement or solicitation, among other requirements.
And working at the abuse desk of an ISP, the only effect I've seen is that it makes idiots easier to identify. The true spammers have no intention of obeying the law, but I've see a few companies who took the passage of I-CAN-SPAM as permission to SPAM as long as they complied with the opt-out rules of the law.
They get their a slightly different bounce message than our standard one as we blacklist them until the heat death of the universe.
---
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:25:47 -0800 To: Declan McCullagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Politech] "Permission-based email marketers" confused about CAN SPAM law [sp]
In a new benchmark audit of 100+ major email marketers, 95 percent include an unsubscribe process, as mandated by the law. At the same time, just 56 percent were in compliance with one of the simplest aspects of CAN-SPAM � the new requirement to add a postal mailing address. The informal survey will be replicated later in Q1, to determine changes in compliance patterns.
The new law requires a "valid postal address". From the USPS perspective this means an address which can receive postal deliveries. The law does not state that this address must be valid for the SENDER.
steve
_______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
