I've recently started receiving emails from Alpha Digital offering me
Sun kit. They have a notice at the bottom:

"We do not wish to offend any one, if you require your details to be
excluded from further E-Mails & Offers please reply to:
mwood@alpha-digital.co.uk with the word REMOVE in the subject header"

So, I thought I'd give them the chance and I replied, with REMOVE in the
subject line. But still the spam comes in.

I'm not sure if it is from them, or perhaps someone claiming to be, as
the originating IP is not even close to that of their domain name. But
my guess is it probably is them.

So if anyone from Alpha Digital is looking at this, please check the
REMOVE emails you have received (sent 29th of October) and remove me
from your mailing list.

Dave wrote:
> I've recently started receiving emails from Alpha Digital offering me
> Sun kit. They have a notice at the bottom:
>
> "We do not wish to offend any one, if you require your details to be
> excluded from further E-Mails & Offers please reply to:
> mwood@alpha-digital.co.uk with the word REMOVE in the subject header"
>
> So, I thought I'd give them the chance and I replied, with REMOVE in the
> subject line. But still the spam comes in.
>
> I'm not sure if it is from them, or perhaps someone claiming to be, as
> the originating IP is not even close to that of their domain name. But
> my guess is it probably is them.
>
> So if anyone from Alpha Digital is looking at this, please check the
> REMOVE emails you have received (sent 29th of October) and remove me
> from your mailing list.
>
>

Replying to spam, even with a "remove" request is a risky thing to do at
best!! Any reply or unsubscribe request verifies that a human being
read the spam and, therefore, the address is valid and mail is read by
humans. You risk getting MORE spam.

At the very least, inspect the header to assure yourself that the
originating IP address matches that of the ostensible sender.

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> Replying to spam, even with a "remove" request is a risky thing to do at
> best!! Any reply or unsubscribe request verifies that a human being
> read the spam and, therefore, the address is valid and mail is read by
> humans. You risk getting MORE spam.

I do know this, but sometimes I wonder if its better to ask to be
removed. At least they are not the viagra type.

I did contact them some years back, but I have never asked to be on
their mailing list. They quoted me some silly prices then, so I never
bought anything.

I've had about 20 emails since 2006, but 7 of them have been in the last
10 days. So they seem to have stepped up the rate a bit, which is why I
want to get rid of them.

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:50:33 +0000, Dave <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> Replying to spam, even with a "remove" request is a risky
>> thing to do at best!! Any reply or unsubscribe request
>> verifies that a human being read the spam and, therefore, the
>> address is valid and mail is read by humans. You risk getting
>> MORE spam.
>
> I do know this, but sometimes I wonder if its better to ask to
> be removed. At least they are not the viagra type.
>
> I did contact them some years back, but I have never asked to
> be on their mailing list. They quoted me some silly prices
> then, so I never bought anything.
>
> I've had about 20 emails since 2006, but 7 of them have been in
> the last 10 days. So they seem to have stepped up the rate a
> bit, which is why I want to get rid of them.

Receiving email because you are on a 'list', which you have never
asked to be a part of, is as "spammy" as one can get.

One random post in several years is probably ok to ignore it is
properly flagged by spamassassin and filtered. Seven posts in 10
days are, in my book, a good enough reason to block the sender's
domain in my `/etc/mail/access' and promptly forget they ever
existed :P

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
...
>Replying to spam, even with a "remove" request is a risky thing to do at
>best!! Any reply or unsubscribe request verifies that a human being
>read the spam and, therefore, the address is valid and mail is read by
>humans. You risk getting MORE spam.

No true SPAM has a legit return address, nor does SPAM typically come
with a remove link either.

True SPAM is just blasted out, they don't care if it gets delivered or
not, they don't care if you get removed, or added, or whatnot. Its
just blast blast blast. They couldn't deal with the bounces if it was
a real legit mailbox, most often the return address is set to another
victom anyway.

OOTH, there's plenty of legit sites out there ready to sign you up &
share your name and email. But they have legit remove links, and it
really does remove your name from *their* list, not necessarily the
ones they bought your name from, or sold your name again to. My Mom
signs up for a lot of this junk, and following the remove links when
I'm in a generous mood does cut back on the amount she gets like crazy.

Doug McIntyre wrote:
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
> ..
>> Replying to spam, even with a "remove" request is a risky thing to do at
>> best!! Any reply or unsubscribe request verifies that a human being
>> read the spam and, therefore, the address is valid and mail is read by
>> humans. You risk getting MORE spam.
>
> No true SPAM has a legit return address, nor does SPAM typically come
> with a remove link either.

I don't agree with that. I have seen plenty of spam that comes with
removes links. I think it makes it look good, and if challenged in court
they could at least say they did not want to spam people, but they are
sorry their removal mechanism broke down.


> True SPAM is just blasted out, they don't care if it gets delivered or
> not, they don't care if you get removed, or added, or whatnot. Its
> just blast blast blast. They couldn't deal with the bounces if it was
> a real legit mailbox, most often the return address is set to another
> victom anyway.

In this case, the return address (mwood@alpha-digital.co.uk) is valid.

It is a company I have dealt with before. He knows my name. But I've
never asked to be put on his mailing list.

I thought he might have had the decency to remove me when I asked, but
that is not so.


>
> OOTH, there's plenty of legit sites out there ready to sign you up &
> share your name and email. But they have legit remove links, and it
> really does remove your name from *their* list, not necessarily the
> ones they bought your name from, or sold your name again to. My Mom
> signs up for a lot of this junk, and following the remove links when
> I'm in a generous mood does cut back on the amount she gets like crazy.


One can at least track who done it by using a unique email address. I
have not done that ofnent, but once nealt with these people

http://www.pcnextday.co.uk/

not wishing to be spammed, I used an email address of pcnextday@ a
domain I own. I never got any spam from them, but had i done so, it
would have been easy to trace.

I don't know of anyone taking legal action against spammers, but lets
say I get fed up with the stuff from alpha-digital, I could quite easily
pay an IT firm £100 or so, to get me removed. Next I send them a bill
for £100. If they don't pay, I go to court through the small claims
track. I suspect they pay up at that point, but if not, a court might
well rule against them. I can imagine they would be a bit more careful
in that case of ensuring their removal procedures worked!

On Nov 7, 12:22 am, Dave <somepl...@nowhere-nice.com> wrote:
> > No true SPAM has a legit return address, nor does SPAM typically come
> > with a remove link either.
>
> I don't agree with that. I have seen plenty of spam that comes with
> removes links.

It is the dirty little secret of that industry that the "remove me"
links/processes are actually used to confirm a real human at the other
end of the address. If you click/respond, they know your address is
valid and that you are receiving the spam.

On 2007-11-07, Jim Leonard <MobyGamer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 12:22 am, Dave <somepl...@nowhere-nice.com> wrote:
>> > No true SPAM has a legit return address, nor does SPAM typically come
>> > with a remove link either.
>>
>> I don't agree with that. I have seen plenty of spam that comes with
>> removes links.
>
> It is the dirty little secret of that industry that the "remove me"
> links/processes are actually used to confirm a real human at the other
> end of the address. If you click/respond, they know your address is
> valid and that you are receiving the spam.

It is, after all, the defining characteristic of spammers; they are liars.

I never, *ever* do business with spammers. Are you listening, SAP, Oracle?


--
"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
and presumptuous desire for a second one."
[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

In comp.sys.sun.hardware Dave <someplace@nowhere-nice.com> wrote:
> Doug McIntyre wrote:
>> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
>> ..
>>> Replying to spam, even with a "remove" request is a risky thing to do at
>>> best!! Any reply or unsubscribe request verifies that a human being
>>> read the spam and, therefore, the address is valid and mail is read by
>>> humans. You risk getting MORE spam.
>>
>> No true SPAM has a legit return address, nor does SPAM typically come
>> with a remove link either.
>
> I don't agree with that. I have seen plenty of spam that comes with
> removes links. I think it makes it look good, and if challenged in court
> they could at least say they did not want to spam people, but they are
> sorry their removal mechanism broke down.
>
>
>> True SPAM is just blasted out, they don't care if it gets delivered or
>> not, they don't care if you get removed, or added, or whatnot. Its
>> just blast blast blast. They couldn't deal with the bounces if it was
>> a real legit mailbox, most often the return address is set to another
>> victom anyway.
>
> In this case, the return address (mwood@alpha-digital.co.uk) is valid.

cron a message back to him, at say 1000 messages every hour. request they
opt out.

I've had results with this technique before.

Cydrome Leader wrote:

> cron a message back to him, at say 1000 messages every hour. request they
> opt out.

Because two wrongs make a right, correct?

JS