A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » System Manufacturers & Vendors » UK Computer Vendors
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 18th 03, 05:51 PM
Chris Owen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default [UK] Evesham Technology slapped on wrist by ASA for spamming

http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/...tions_id=54 3

Advertising Standards Authority Adjudications

Adjudications : By Advertiser Name (17th December 2003)

Evesham Technology t/a lowestonweb.com
Vale Park
Evesham
Worcestershire
WR11 6TD

Date: 17th December 2003

Media: E-mail

Sector: Computers and telecommunications

Public Complaint From: Nationwide (x22)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complaint:
Objections to five e-mails for a computer company.

a. One e-mail was headed "Lowest on Web - The no.1 on the web for best
PC price PC components and peripherals" and featured various products.
The text at the bottom of the e-mail stated "If you no longer wish to
receive promotional email from Lowest On Web please reply to this
email with remove, followed by your email address in the subject (i.e.
remove [complainant's email address] ...".

b. A second e-mail was headed "September offers from Evesham
Technology" and featured several offers and an opportunity to enter a
prize draw. Text at the bottom of the e-mail stated "If you have
received this email in error then please accept our sincerest
apologies, this error may have occurred through another person
entering your email address or a database provider not washing their
data correctly. If you no longer wish to receive promotional email
from Evesham Technology, please click here ...".

c. A third e-mail was headed "EVOLUTION BLUE LIGHTNING 2.8" and
featured several products. Text at the bottom of the e-mail stated "If
you have received this email in error then please accept our sincerest
apologies, this error may have occurred through another person
entering your email address or a database provider not washing their
data correctly. If you no longer wish to receive promotional email
from Evesham Technology, please reply to this email with remove,
followed by your email address in the subject (i.e. remove
[complainant's email address] ...".

d. A fourth e-mail was headed "OFFER OF THE MONTH!" and featured
several products. Text at the bottom of the e-mail stated "If you have
received this email in error then please accept our sincerest
apologies, this error may have occurred through another person
entering your email address or a database provider not washing their
data correctly. If you no longer wish to receive promotional email
from Evesham Technology, go to [promoters' website] ...".

e. A fifth e-mail was headed "Introducing Microsoft Windows XP Center
[sic] Edition" and featured several offers. Text at the bottom of the
e-mail stated "If you have received this email in error then please
accept our sincerest apologies, this error may have occurred through
another person entering your email address or a database provider not
washing their data correctly. If you no longer wish to receive
promotional email from Evesham Technology, go to [promoters' website]
....".

The complainants objected that they had not consented to receive the
e-mails.

Codes Section: 22.1, 43.1, 43.2, 43.3, 43.4, 43.7, 43.9 (Ed 11)

Adjudication: Complaints upheld

The promoters said they had bought the data, over the Internet, from a
company that had told them they could supply databases of opt-in
e-mail addresses. They said they had later found that the data was not
suitable for e-mail marketing. The promoters said they had not used
that data provider again and were reviewing their purchasing of
databases. The Authority concluded that the promoters had not checked
the bona fides of the database supplier and thus the integrity of the
data. It told them to take greater care to ensure the integrity of the
data in future.
  #2  
Old December 18th 03, 06:29 PM
Graham Walter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Chris Owen) wrote:

http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/...tions_id=54 3
snip
Adjudication: Complaints upheld

The promoters said they had bought the data, over the Internet, from a
company that had told them they could supply databases of opt-in
e-mail addresses. They said they had later found that the data was not
suitable for e-mail marketing.


Although, of course, this didn't stop them using it again in early
December, after these statements were made, and also after the
adjudication was made (but before it was published).

Cheers
Graham

--
Isn't it wonderful to think that one day this tiny acorn will grow into a mighty ash.
  #3  
Old December 18th 03, 08:25 PM
Peter G. Hancock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Chris Owen wrote (on Thu, 18 Dec 2003 at 16:51):


The Authority concluded that the promoters had not checked the
bona fides of the database supplier and thus the integrity of
the data. It told them to take greater care to ensure the
integrity of the data in future.


Savage. I do not think I will be able to sleep tonight because of the
sheer fury of the ASA, and of the torment that Evesham must be
suffering, after being told to take greater care. Life is but a
vale of suffering.

Peter Hancock



  #4  
Old January 27th 04, 05:17 PM
Andy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Chris Owen
wrote
http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/...adjudication_i
d=37119&from_index=show_advertisers&dates_of_adju dications_id=543

Advertising Standards Authority Adjudications

Adjudications : By Advertiser Name (17th December 2003)

Evesham Technology t/a lowestonweb.com
Vale Park
Evesham
Worcestershire
WR11 6TD

[snippity]

And what do I find amongst today's bodily-extensions? promotions at
eveshamtechnology dot info seeking to extend my knowledge of the
Evolution Blue Beast.

ASA informed; watch this space.
--
Andy
For Austria & its philately, Lupus, & much else visit
URL:http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/
  #5  
Old January 27th 04, 09:43 PM
Anthony Edwards
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:17:05 +0000, Andy wrote:
In message , Chris Owen
wrote
http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/...adjudication_i
d=37119&from_index=show_advertisers&dates_of_adj udications_id=543

Advertising Standards Authority Adjudications

Adjudications : By Advertiser Name (17th December 2003)

Evesham Technology t/a lowestonweb.com
Vale Park
Evesham
Worcestershire
WR11 6TD

[snippity]

And what do I find amongst today's bodily-extensions? promotions at
eveshamtechnology dot info seeking to extend my knowledge of the
Evolution Blue Beast.

ASA informed; watch this space.


Indeed yes, I also today received three copies of the Unsolicited
Commercial Email in question, sent to email addresses two of which
were clearly harvested from Usenet (albeit it would seem, based on
the email addresses used, several years ago).

LARTs sent to Energis UK (the UCE was apparently sent from an Energis
UK supplied routed subnet) and GX Networks UK Ltd (who provide
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):

anthony@catfish:~ wc -m evesham.txt
6338 evesham.txt

(i.e. the complaint saved as a text file is 6338 characters in length,
of which approximately two thirds of that is the Unsolicited Commercial
Email itself)

I considered sending a complaint to the ASA by fax, however that
constitutes too much hoop jumping to be a desirable option. If the ASA
wish to receive complaints concerning unsolicited email advertising,
a substantial increase in the number of characters permitted when
using the online complaint form would be worthwhile.

--
Anthony Edwards

  #6  
Old January 27th 04, 09:58 PM
Andy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Anthony Edwards
wrote
[]
I considered sending a complaint to the ASA by fax, however that
constitutes too much hoop jumping to be a desirable option. If the ASA
wish to receive complaints concerning unsolicited email advertising,
a substantial increase in the number of characters permitted when
using the online complaint form would be worthwhile.

Also, it falls foul of the my-firewall-rogers-webforms problem discussed
in d.s.

However, there is a low-technology route available - print the UCE,
compose a covering letter, and post it to ASA, 2 Torrington Place,
London WC1E 7HW. They themselves suggested this to me. Don't forget to
include your full postal address (you'd also need to give this on their
web site)
--
Andy
For Austria & its philately, Lupus, & much else visit
URL:http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/
  #7  
Old January 27th 04, 09:59 PM
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Anthony Edwards wrote:

LARTs sent to Energis UK (the UCE was apparently sent from an Energis
UK supplied routed subnet) and GX Networks UK Ltd (who provide
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):

anthony@catfish:~ wc -m evesham.txt
6338 evesham.txt


Something needs an adjustment--if the spammer can avoid complaints
by increasing the size of the paylod, then something is very wrong.


But we knew that when we came in, didn't we?
  #8  
Old January 27th 04, 10:08 PM
Stewart Robert Hinsley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Anthony Edwards
writes

LARTs sent to Energis UK (the UCE was apparently sent from an Energis
UK supplied routed subnet) and GX Networks UK Ltd (who provide
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):

anthony@catfish:~ wc -m evesham.txt
6338 evesham.txt

(i.e. the complaint saved as a text file is 6338 characters in length,
of which approximately two thirds of that is the Unsolicited Commercial
Email itself)

I considered sending a complaint to the ASA by fax, however that
constitutes too much hoop jumping to be a desirable option. If the ASA
wish to receive complaints concerning unsolicited email advertising,
a substantial increase in the number of characters permitted when
using the online complaint form would be worthwhile.


A possibility would be to place a copy of UCE on a web page, and include
the URL in the ADA form. OTOH, that may also constitute excessive hoop
jumping, and also could be argued to breach the spammer's copyright.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
  #9  
Old January 27th 04, 10:31 PM
Hammond Organ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Malev
writes
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:43:28 -0000, Anthony Edwards
wrote:
Indeed yes, I also today received three copies of the Unsolicited
Commercial Email in question, sent to email addresses two of which
were clearly harvested from Usenet (albeit it would seem, based on
the email addresses used, several years ago).


Got 2 myself this afternoon.
Harvested from an email adress I only used for a fortnight on Usenet in July
2000


Looks like the layoffs mentioned in

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/51/34764.html

didn't work.

Time to call a plenary session of the "Spammer Rule #4 Enforcement
Committee"[1] methinks.

[1]TINSR4EC
--
+Hammond Organ+
  #10  
Old January 27th 04, 10:55 PM
Anthony Edwards
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:59:01 -0600, Laurence F. Sheldon,
Jr. wrote:
Anthony Edwards wrote:

LARTs sent to Energis UK (the UCE was apparently sent from an Energis
UK supplied routed subnet) and GX Networks UK Ltd (who provide
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):

anthony@catfish:~ wc -m evesham.txt
6338 evesham.txt


Something needs an adjustment--if the spammer can avoid complaints
by increasing the size of the paylod, then something is very wrong.


But we knew that when we came in, didn't we?


To be fair to the Advertising Standards Authority, their primary
remit is to deal with conventional media advertising rather than
email advertising, which probably makes up a very small percentage
of the complaints that they handle.

The correct place for UK residents to complain to in respect of
Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003
contraventions is the Information Commissioner's Office. However,
in that instance, there does not appear to be an electronic complaint
submission mechanism at all.

--
Anthony Edwards

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question - Microsoft Approved OEM Manufacturers [email protected] General 1 January 9th 05 08:04 PM
GIGABYTE TECHNOLOGY receives highest honors—15th Annual National Quality Award Gigabyte USA Marketing Gigabyte Motherboards 0 November 4th 04 08:35 PM
FUNNY Gateway Chat about "Centrino Mobile Technology". newtothis Gateway Computers 13 February 29th 04 03:24 AM
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor with HT Technology Extreme Edition. When will we see them?????????????????? [email protected] Asus Motherboards 2 January 27th 04 10:51 PM
ASA uphold Evesham complaint, given slap on the wrist Andrew Bell UK Computer Vendors 1 December 18th 03 06:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.