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Your email address will not be published.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 *

  • HE.net DNS problems

    Hurricane Electric had a significant outage of their authoritative DNS servers this morning, causing them to return valid responses with no results for all(?) queries. This will have caused delivery problems for any mail going to domains using HE.net DNS - which will include some of their colocation customers, as well as users of their free services - but also will have caused reverse DNS to fail for most servers hosted by Hurricane Electric worldwide, so if any of your mail is being sent from HE hosted machines you may have seen problems. (We're HE customers so we noticed. Still happy with them as a vendor.)No Comments


  • 65.0.0.0/8 DNS issues

    If you're sending email from any address beginning with a 65 - in 65.0.0.0/8 - it's possible you'll see some delivery problems. Something appears to be broken with dnssec signatures for the reverse DNS zone, leading queries for reverse DNS to fail for anyone using a dnssec aware DNS resolver (which is almost everyone).1 Comment


  • Our green bar certificate is going away

    Later today we'll be switching from an Extended Validation ("green bar") SSL certificate to a Domain Validation certificate. This isn't exactly a planned change but I'm waiting for responses from Comodo before I go into it too much. I'll share some more details next week.3 Comments


Archives