BLOG

Spammers are funny

Dear Spammer,

If you are going to send me an email that claims it complies with the Federal CAN SPAM act of 2003, it would be helpful if the mail actually complies with CAN SPAM.

In this case, however, you are sending to an address you’ve harvested off my website. The mail you are sending does not contain a physical postal email address. You’re also forging headers. Both of those things are violations of CAN SPAM. Given you have also harvested the laura-questions@ email from this website, that is treble damages.

Oh, and while we’re at it, you might want to consider your current disclaimer.

The message facilitates a previous agreement of the transaction/service of a transactional relationship for which the intended recipient explicitly has double confirmed agreement to be contacted and informed in an ongoing capacity. If you are not the intended recipient(s), responsible for delivering partially or in full any transmission to the intended recipient(s), and/or have received the transmission in error, you are hereby notified you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing and/or disclosing any of the content, materials, and accompanying attachment(s) contained within.

Oh. Ooops. It looks like I’ve done something I’m “strictly prohibited” from doing. What are you going to do sue me? That may not be in your best interest. I’d enjoy the counter suit.

Sincerely,
laura

2 comments

  1. Huey says

    I’ve found that, if the message includes something to the effect of “by reading this message, you agree to not read this message”, it likely has other problems as well.

  2. Kelson says

    One of my favorite stupid spam footers was someone who demanded “physical proof” in the event of a spam complaint, or else he’d file criminal fraud charges against the complainant.

Comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • ReturnPath on DMARC+Yahoo

    Over at ReturnPath Christine has an excellent non-technical summary of the DMARC+Yahoo situation, along with some solid recommendations for what actions you might take to avoid the operational problems it can cause.No Comments


  • AOL problems

    Lots of people are reporting ongoing (RTR:GE) messages from AOL today.  This indicates the AOL mail servers are having problems and can't accept mail. This has nothing to do with spam, filtering or malicious email. This is simply their servers aren't functioning as well as they should be and so AOL can't accept all the mail thrown at them. These types of blocks resolve themselves. 1 Comment


  • Fixing discussion lists to work with new Yahoo policy

    Al has some really good advice on how to fix discussion lists to work with the new Yahoo policy. One thing I would add is the suggestion to actually check dmarc records before assuming policy. This will not only mean you're not having to rewrite things that don't need to be rewritten, but it will also mean you won't be caught flat footed if (when?) other free mail providers start publishing p=reject.No Comments


Archives