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: keep spamming even when they say they'll stop

About a month ago I posted about receiving spam from a psychic attempting to sell me candles and stuff. The spammer was sending mail from a company called “Garden of Sound” using an ESP called OnLetterhead. A brief investigation led me to believe that unsubscribing from the mail was not going to do anything.
The post prompted an email from Scott B. the VP of Marketing of the company that is responsible for OnLetterhead. I replied to his email, pointing out a number of things he was doing that made his business look like an ESP front for spammers.
After he received my mail he called me to talk to me about the content of my post and the email and to assure me they were immediately implementing one of my suggestion (that they not put a generic “here’s how to unsubscribe” link on their 1000+ link domains, instead have those actually point to their AUP and corporate pages). He also assured me they took my complaint seriously and I would no longer be receiving email.
Guess what?
Garden of Sound is still spamming me from OnLetterhead. They’ve not even managed to implement the changes they pledged would be rolled out the same week as my blog post. Sure, the domain I’m getting spam from is different, the physical postal address is different, the product is different, the friendly from is different. But the preheader still says “this mail sent by Garden of Sound.” It’s all the same list, it’s all the same company, it’s all the same group of spammers.
Despite Scott’s attempt to convince me he wasn’t a spammer, it seems my initial impression was right. OnLetterhead is simply are a company attempting to look like they’re legitimate without actually taking any responsibility for the email going out from their network. They can’t even manage the bare minimum.
It’s companies like this that give the rest of ESPs a bad name.

Read More

Three ways spammers get your address

Paul explains 3 ways spammers get your email address.

Read More

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