[SpamCop-List] Re: BusinessLighthouse.com spammer responds to Julian

[Bob W.]

In article <mailman.993680028.3366.spamcop-list>, 
spamcop-list wrote:

> At 02:26 PM 6/27/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >In article <9hd7gt$s0q$1>, "Greg Lirette" 
> ><glirette> wrote:
> >
> > >   He does bring up some good points and someone else may have 
> > >   subscribed 
> > >   you to the list.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >Greg... The spammer brings up *zero* good points.
> >
> >Whether someone else subscribes you is completely irrelevant.
> >
> >Confirmed opt-in would have eliminated the problem; confirmed opt-in is 
> >the only way to ethically, responsibly run a mailing list.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Agreed, but sometimes, that's not even enough.  I've recently purchased 
> some domain names.  Apparently, the previous owners had, one way or 

<snip>

> point.   It's totally possible that a user of the former owners DID  opt 
> in for this mailing.  Given that I recently bought the domain, I decided 
> not to repeat the reports.   However, I would think the bounces while the 
> domain didn't belong to anyone would have been enough to get them to 
> delete this former opt-in subscriber to their mailing.

Perhaps. But how do you know that bounces were generated? There's no way 
to assume if the sender actually did any mailings during that time... at 
least from the standpoint of justifying abuse reporting.

> I would go as far as to say that even confirmed opt-in mailing lists 
> should have some requirement for regular (monthly?) re-conformation 
> especially if there has been a history of message bouncing.

This isn't always desirable. Some lists are specifically low-traffic, 
and even a monthly reminder would be considered a nuisance by the 
subscribers. (I can mention a couple of lists I'm on that really tick me 
off with periodic "Hey-- We don't have anything to say this month, but 
we just wanted you to know that you're still subscribed, and we're still 
in business!" messages.

Working unsub instructions in solicited mailings really should be 
sufficient.

> I know many 
> the mailing lists I'm in give out a first of the month reminder/how to 
> get off message.   In our suggestions to the mailing list owners, we need 
> think about this long term.   Once a list member doesn't mean always a 
> list member.

No kidding.

One of my domains was transferred to me when the previous owner (another 
Bob with my last name) died.

He had used his email address for posting on message boards, and it now 
gets a ton of spam.

But in addition, when I first got the domain, mail would come in from 
sources I knew he'd had business relationships with. If there was a 
question, I would actually forward the mail to his widow (a very 
nice woman), who would let me know if it was spam or not.

Then there's the matter of Loehmann's department store.

A couple of weeks ago, these morons sent me an *opt-out* message. They'd 
apparently hired a data-matching service to find out the email addresses 
of their former customers -- of which the former domain owner was 
evidently one -- and spewed to that list.

It was opt-out, so I LARTed it. The other Bob may have been a customer, 
but he obviously had not asked for email from them. And even if he had, 
it had been *three years* since his death.

IMNSHO, this was absolutely, positively spam.

Unfortunately, several complaints to CheetahMail's and Loehmann's 
upstreams apparently haven't stopped this mainsleaze spam. The next one 
calls for phone calls to the upstreams.

The transferring/buying of a previous person or company's domain poses 
unique problems that can't be dealt with in broad strokes; there are 
just unfortunate side-effects that come with the territory. We can only 
LART with caution and hope that we don't piss off the wrong people.  <g>

-- 
...Bob W.