Important notification spammers break the law

I’m currently being inundated at multiple address with spam advertising spamming services. Most of these notices have the subject line: IMPORTANT NOTIFICATION. The text includes:

E-mail newsletters, opt-in e-mail campaigns, e-zines, and other forms of responsible e-mail marketing are the norm for larger Internet businesses – why not yours?
Click Here  to Find Out More Info!
We can help you learn how to initiate a responsible mass e-mail campaign. With our inhouse dedicated SMTP Servers and mailing lists, you will have all the tools that you need.
If you’re not reaching existing and potential customers or members with your e-mail marketing message, you can be assured that your competition will be.

OK Mr. Spammer. Whatever you say. See, the problem is that you’re breaking the law. You have no valid contact information in your mail. You have no valid opt-out. You’re sending through what appears to be an open proxy. In short, your mail is in complete violation of CAN SPAM.
Anyone out there looking for information on Lifestyle Solutions of Franktown, Colorado ((303) 688-5774) and (888) 313-2220) be sure you know they are spammers and, judging by the other stuff they’re doing, scammers as well. Don’t trust them to advertise by email for you, find someone who not only knows the law but follows it as well.

Related Posts

TWSD: breaking the law

I tell my clients that they should comply with CAN SPAM (physical postal address and unsubscribe option) even if the mail they are sending is technically exempt. The bar for legality is so low, there is no reason not to.
Sure, there is a lot of spam out there that does not comply with CAN SPAM. Everything you see from botnets and proxies is in violation, although many of those mails do actually meet the postal address and unsubscribe requirements.
One of my spams recently caught my eye today with their disclaimer on the bottom: “This email message is CAN SPAM ACT of 2003 Compliant.” The really funny bit is that it does not actually comply with the law. Even better, the address it was sent to is not published anywhere, so the company could also be nailed for a dictionary attack and face enhanced penalties.
It reminds me of the old spams that claimed they complied with S.1618.

Read More

Three ways spammers get your address

Paul explains 3 ways spammers get your email address.

Read More

The good, the typical and the ugly

In the theme of the ongoing discussions about ESPs and their role in the email ecosystem, I thought I’d present some examples of how different ESPs work.
The good ESPs are those that set and enforce higher standards than the ISPs. They invest money and time in both proactive and reactive policy enforcement. On Monday I’ll talk about these standards, and the benefits of implementing these policies.
The typical ESPs are those that have standards equivalent to those of the ISPs. They suspend or disconnect customers when the customers generate problems at the ISPs. They have some proactive policy enforcement, but most of their enforcement is reactive. On Tuesday I’ll talk about these standards and how they’re perceived by the ISPs and spam filtering companies.
The ugly ESPs are those that have low standards and few enforcement policies. They let customers send mail without permission. Some of the ugly ESPs even abuse other ESPs to send some of their mail, thus sharing their bad reputations across the industry. On Wednesday I’ll look at some of their practices and discuss how they affect other players in the industry.

Read More