[UK] Evesham Technology slapped on wrist by ASA for spamming

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Graham Walter wrote:

Anthony Edwards wrote:
[snip]
LARTs sent to Energis UK (the UCE was apparently sent from an Energis
UK supplied routed subnet) and GX Networks UK Ltd (who provide

and to them as well

Internet connectivity to the "spamvertised" web site). I considered
a complaint to the ASA also, however their online complaint form will
accept a complaint a maximum of 1500 characters in length, whereas
(saving my LART including a copy of one of the Unsolicited Commercial
Emails in text format):

You can at least upload files with your complaint - no limit there

.... except for a requirement to have a browser that can do that. It would
be a bit difficult to do with lynx 2.7ac used at my ISP. (OK, I'm not in
the UK so wouldn't be likely to use their form but other users who *are*
in the UK could have similar browser limitations.)

AFAIK (Yes, I know forwarding emails would be much more convenient,
but at least they're not as bad in this area as the IC's office).

--
Norman De Forest http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
[=||=] (A Speech Friendly Site)
"Spammers are the tapeworms of the Internet."
-- Patricia A. Shaffer in news.admin.net-abuse.email, Fri, 18 Oct 2002

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:07:34 +0000, Alan wrote:

Feel sorry for the employees, they are only trying to do as management
wants, and that includes spamming.

Spamming is illegal under UK law. Any employee who does it while knowing
it's illegal faces personal legal liability.

Any employee who refuses to do it and is fired has a pretty good case for
legal action against the company. It's illegal to order someone to perform
an illegal act as part of their job.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:58:49 +0000, Morely Dotes wrote:

I wouldn't call mainsleaze spam theft and tresspass

US Federal judges would (and have) disagree(d) with you.

UK dialup users (who are still paying for connect time by-the-minute I
believe) should disagree with you.

I just saw a posting in uk.telecom(*) from a poster who's complaining that
he just had to shell out 9 POUNDS in call charges to clear his inbox(**)
of spam messages(***) accumulated over 1 day.

(*) I've been monitoring it since the prank-a-mate stuff here mentioned
that group.

(**) An Amstrad email appliance. Apparently they're locked into checking
one particular server and dialin using a premium charge number.

(***) Apparently the people running that "service"(****) don't filter
spam. That's a nice little earner for them, isn't it?


(****) I'd say their idea of servicing the customer is simlar to a bull's
idea of servicing the cows.

In article , Uncle
StoatWarbler writes

(**) An Amstrad email appliance. Apparently they're locked into
checking
one particular server and dialin using a premium charge number.

Appliance sold at a loss with the profit coming from providing the email
service. I am quoting from Amstrad's annual report to shareholders.
--
Les Desser
(The Reply-to address IS correct - hope Swen ignores it))

In message , Uncle
StoatWarbler writes
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:07:34 +0000, Alan wrote:

Feel sorry for the employees, they are only trying to do as management
wants, and that includes spamming.

Spamming is illegal under UK law. Any employee who does it while knowing
it's illegal faces personal legal liability.
I think it would be difficult, maybe impossible even with forensic
examination of computer hardware, to prove which employee was actually
responsible.


Any employee who refuses to do it and is fired has a pretty good case for
legal action against the company. It's illegal to order someone to perform
an illegal act as part of their job.
With a good responsible employer that would be fine, but with Evesham?
Evesham spam. Has an employee ever taken an employer to court after
being dismissal for refusing to send out spam? I doubt it. With the
time that will take to get to court I doubt Evesham will still be
trading.
--
Alan

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 01:24:26 +0000, Les Desser ]
wrote:

In article , Uncle
StoatWarbler writes

(**) An Amstrad email appliance. Apparently they're locked into
checking
one particular server and dialin using a premium charge number.

Appliance sold at a loss with the profit coming from providing the email
service. I am quoting from Amstrad's annual report to shareholders.

But never quoted in the ads :-)

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
regards. Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)

"Norman L. DeForest" wrote in
.
ca:


On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Graham Walter wrote:

You can at least upload files with your complaint - no limit there

... except for a requirement to have a browser that can do that. It
would be a bit difficult to do with lynx 2.7ac used at my ISP.

If you are using Lynx[1] because you[2] are, for example, blind[3], you
could use UK Disability Discrimination law to get them to modify the
website.

[1] For various values of Lynx, including any other browser.
[2] FVVO 'you', including 'other people who use lynx'
[3] FVVO 'blind' including any disability that makes any specific
website/browser combination inaccessable.

but other
users who *are* in the UK could have similar browser limitations.)

I am frequently baffled by the ****-poor web 'design' of sites that want my
money.

In message ,
Edwin Petree writes
"Norman L. DeForest" wrote in
.
ca:


On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Graham Walter wrote:

You can at least upload files with your complaint - no limit there

... except for a requirement to have a browser that can do that. It
would be a bit difficult to do with lynx 2.7ac used at my ISP.

If you are using Lynx[1] because you[2] are, for example, blind[3], you
could use UK Disability Discrimination law to get them to modify the
website.

[1] For various values of Lynx, including any other browser.
[2] FVVO 'you', including 'other people who use lynx'
[3] FVVO 'blind' including any disability that makes any specific
website/browser combination inaccessable.

but other
users who *are* in the UK could have similar browser limitations.)

I am frequently baffled by the ****-poor web 'design' of sites that want my
money.

Additions welcome!
http://www.siliconglen.com/usability/pants.html

Re the lynx discussion, you may enjoy visiting messagelabs.com using
Mozilla, Netscape or some other non IE browsers. Blank page or "We don't
support text browsers"
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). SiliconGlen.com Ltd. http://SiliconGlen.com
Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994.
Scottish FAQ, wedding info, website design, stop spam and more!

In message ,
Edwin Petree writes
"Norman L. DeForest" wrote in
.
ca:


On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Graham Walter wrote:

You can at least upload files with your complaint - no limit there

... except for a requirement to have a browser that can do that. It
would be a bit difficult to do with lynx 2.7ac used at my ISP.

If you are using Lynx[1] because you[2] are, for example, blind[3], you
could use UK Disability Discrimination law to get them to modify the
website.

[1] For various values of Lynx, including any other browser.
[2] FVVO 'you', including 'other people who use lynx'
[3] FVVO 'blind' including any disability that makes any specific
website/browser combination inaccessable.

Almost as good as me logging a fault about http://www.tesco.com/access
because the pound sign only displays in IE.

Tesco's surprising response was that they only support IE and Netscape
(this excludes Mozilla for instance).

So much for disability access then.
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"). SiliconGlen.com Ltd. http://SiliconGlen.com
Home to the first online guide to Scotland, founded 1994.
Scottish FAQ, wedding info, website design, stop spam and more!

"Craig Cockburn" wrote in message
...
In message ,
Edwin Petree writes

Almost as good as me logging a fault about http://www.tesco.com/access
because the pound sign only displays in IE.

Tesco's surprising response was that they only support IE and Netscape
(this excludes Mozilla for instance).

So much for disability access then.
--

And no use having Tesco's accident insurance and having an accident in
Tesco's.
You are not covered as Tesco's feel unable to sue Tesco's.

Chris Greville