Is "permission based marketer" another way to say spammer? [sp]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

---

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:44:33 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: declan () well com
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:

> loren () uptilt com

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/spamcon-marketing () spamcon org/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 <declan () well com>
From: "Brian W. Antoine" <abuse () windwireless net>
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 <declan () well com>
From: Steve Schear <s.schear () comcast net>
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/)