Evesham spam

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:04:25 +0100, Bruce Stephens
wrote:

Bagpuss writes:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:10:44 -0500, Bertie Ditch
wrote:

[...]

The change was not announced to the press. The new MD is an unpopular
American named Brad Walker.

Maybe someone should email him:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3120628.stm

Just guessing, but he may not be reading email at the moment.

Anyway, that looks like £5000 buys you permission to spam the entire
country, if you get caught after a warning, and provided you can
persuade the DPC to keep it in magistrates court. Or is it £5000 per
incident?

I would suspect per incident else there it no incentive.


More immediately, there's this:
http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=36597

Not that that's had any noticable effect. The adjudication was on the
10 September, and I got spam from them on 17 September.

I would get in touch with the asa they don't like companies ingorning
adjudications.

Perhaps someone should inform them about Evesham.

--
This post does not reflect the opinions of all saggy cloth
cats be they a bit loose at the seams or not
GSX600F - Matilda the (now) two eared teapot, complete with
white gaffer tape, though no rectal chainsaw

Bagpuss writes:

[...]

Perhaps someone should inform them [ASA] about Evesham.

Several people have.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:04:25 +0100, Bruce Stephens
wrote:

Bagpuss writes:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:10:44 -0500, Bertie Ditch
wrote:

[...]

The change was not announced to the press. The new MD is an unpopular
American named Brad Walker.

Maybe someone should email him:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3120628.stm

Just guessing, but he may not be reading email at the moment.

Anyway, that looks like £5000 buys you permission to spam the entire
country, if you get caught after a warning, and provided you can
persuade the DPC to keep it in magistrates court. Or is it £5000 per
incident?

More immediately, there's this:
http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=36597

Not that that's had any noticable effect. The adjudication was on the
10 September, and I got spam from them on 17 September.

Have you had a look at some of the previous Evesham adjudications. I
think the monitor view size one is a little harsh but some of the
others are interesting. The tacky Laptop dancing one would put me off
buying one myself.
--
This post does not reflect the opinions of all saggy cloth
cats be they a bit loose at the seams or not
GSX600F - Matilda the (now) two eared teapot, complete with
white gaffer tape, though no rectal chainsaw

Bertie's amusing Eveshame email address amused me.

By the powers not invested in me by this group, and invoking the ghost of
Watfraud, Hereinafter Evesham shall be known as Eveshame.

God rest her tortured soul.

-Rob


PS Been quite a while since someone mentioned that you could get in touch with
.



-Rob
robatwork at mail dot com

Parent:
Earlier Malev ] uttered:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:29:10 +0100, Rob S
wrote:


PS Been quite a while since someone mentioned that you could get in
touch with .

Isn't this the proper way:
A /A
A "support@evesham. com/A
A "business@evesha m.com/A
A
/A
A "webmaster@eves ham.com/A A
/A

I beleive mentioning the following is a helpful way of informing their
employees of upcoming offers.

A /a
A "support@evesham. com/a
A "business@evesha m.com/a
A /a
A "webmaster@eves ham.com/a
A /a

--
Andrew
The above address IS valid but will go straight to my spambin. If you
want to make sure I read your email unmunge

In uk.comp.vendors, Andrew waffled thusly:

I beleive mentioning the following is a helpful way of informing their
employees of upcoming offers.

A /a
A "support@evesham. com/a
A "business@evesha m.com/a
A /a
A "webmaster@eves ham.com/a
A /a

If nothing else, they will at least be kept up to date with the
latest Microsoft "Security Patches" and "Critical Updates".

--
Lee J. Moore
http://cafe-society.com

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

A question:
If you post an address like say in Usenet, won't
it be harvested by spambots?
If my addy was I wouldn't like it to be harvested.

It won't actually matter as this address has probably already been removed
from the mailserver. Stuart Truman was made redundant last year.

Malev wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:29:10 +0100, Rob S
wrote:


PS Been quite a while since someone mentioned that you could get in touch with
.

Isn't this the proper way:
A /A
A "support@evesham. com/A
A "business@evesha m.com/A
A /A
A "webmaster@eves ham.com/A
A /A

Well I complained to their ISP and got this:

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:


SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT :
host gxmx1.gxn.net [62.232.80.37]: 554 5.7.1 Rejected 194.73.73.148
found in dnsbl.sorbs.net

looks like the ISP are blocked and serves them right!


--
SPAM (delete NOSPAM)
www.redoak.co.uk www.eze-buy.co.uk

John Perry wrote in
:

Well I complained to their ISP and got this:

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:


SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT :
host gxmx1.gxn.net [62.232.80.37]: 554 5.7.1 Rejected 194.73.73.148
found in dnsbl.sorbs.net

looks like the ISP are blocked and serves them right!

err.. that's your ISP assuming you use btinternet -

http://moensted.dk/spam/?addr=194.73...&Submit=Submit

regards
Paul
--
paul at spamcop.net

Paul Hutchings wrote:

John Perry wrote in
:

Well I complained to their ISP and got this:

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:


SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT :
host gxmx1.gxn.net [62.232.80.37]: 554 5.7.1 Rejected 194.73.73.148
found in dnsbl.sorbs.net

looks like the ISP are blocked and serves them right!

err.. that's your ISP assuming you use btinternet -

http://moensted.dk/spam/?addr=194.73...&Submit=Submit

Looks like I got that wrong, I'll have to search out an FAQ on these
black lists unless someone knows of one, and then read up about it.

--
SPAM (delete NOSPAM)
www.redoak.co.uk www.eze-buy.co.uk