net-vest SPAM

Tom Carlson tcarlson at fcpa.fujitsu.com
Tue Jul 21 10:33:11 PDT 1998


* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at symbios.com), posted by:
* "Tom Carlson" <tcarlson at fcpa.fujitsu.com>
*
Hello Harlan (and other annoy-ees),

This is not the correct forum for spam discussion, but since it has been a problem on occasion, I'm sending out a
warning to folks who might take spam contents seriously: don't.  Assume they're lies.  Don't respond at all, not even to
"remove" yourself.

According to our internal person handling spams, you must NOT respond to those "remove" messages.  All you are doing is
giving them your real email address since they reached you via the reflector.  If I understand correctly, you should be
glad your "remove" message bounced, since it means somebody has already blocked the spammer's return address.  Since
they are so easy to spoof, however, the next spam will simply be from a different fake address.  You may have noticed
that this "JT Restaurant Stock" has appeared on our reflectors repeatedly, in different forms, from different addresses.

Regarding the "email bill", it is a liar's reference to a real item only loosely related to the subject.  Here's an
extract from our internal "spam person", about this "email bill":

*****
(...)
This is an attempt to pull the wool over your eyes, but it's related to a bid to legitimize spam. S 1618 is the
"anti-slamming" bill that passed the Senate 99-0 in May, and its main purpose was to prevent phone companies from
changing your long-distance carrier without your knowledge. Two senators, Murkowski and Torricelli, added a rider to the
bill that would establish guidelines for unsolicited commercial email. The main provisions are that the spammers would
have to provide a legitimate reply address and allow the recipient to have his email address removed from their mailing
lists. This might sound good, but in the view of some, ( see http://www.cauce.org), this merely legitimizes the process
of sending spam in the first place, when the brunt of the cost is borne by the ISPs and hence their customers, by giving
millions of potential spammers a legal first shot at your email address (not to mention that you would be sending out a
million remove requests to all these people). The bill is in the House right now, as HR 3888. Since it has not yet
passed the House, it is not yet law, so if spammers add lines to their email claiming it complies with "Federal
guidelines" on commercial email, it is for the present time meaningless.
*****

What can be done?  I don't have a good answer.  Unfortunately the "keeper(s) of the reflector" are the only folks able
to do something about this, and their options are limited.  I really hope they discover an effective defense.


-Tom Carlson
Fujitsu Computer Products of America
tcarlson(at)fcpa(dot)fujitsu(dot)com

P.S., If you want to protect your phone number, don't use their toll-free number.  Caller-ID cannot be blocked on
toll-free numbers.  And in case you've ever tried, you cannot locate a company [that does not want to be found] with
only a PO box address.  -tc

P.P.S., If my facts are wrong, PLEASE let me know!  My ego will recover.  -tc


*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at symbios.com





More information about the T10 mailing list