Jump to content

IanDavid

Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IanDavid

  1. Since 90% of the spam I receive (in Hong Kong) is advertising US companies, perhaps it would be more useful if the rest of the world stopped doing business with the USA. Good point. But I think one key difference is that our government has made a legislative effort (albeit a lame one) to address the problem. If China wanted to solve their spam problem, they are one of the few countries in a position to do so overnight. It's a lot easier to shut-down a spamhaven than a student democracy protest. They're already shutting-down anyone that allows access to computer games that are unfavorable to their politics, or anyone who sends emails saying that Tibet should be free. If they're going to be a repressive facist regime, then for once it should work to the world's favor. The only answer is, the Chinese government likes it that way. Our government does not-- we're just too inept to do anything effective about it. Also, I make distinctions between China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Taiwan is not China, and Hong Kong is still playing by a shrinking set of different rules. I have gotten very little spam from Hong Kong. And it's not so much a matter of where the spam email is coming from that frustrates me, as the fact that the spamvertised sites are almost always in China. You won't find very many hosts in the US that don't delete spammer's websites. We just have a whole lot of exploitable open-relays due to negligence and sloppiness and short-sidededness. But there are companies in China that lovingly coddle spammers and couldn't care less about spam complaints. That is the key issue: Who is hosting their sites, who is providing aid and comfort. They can send all the email they want, from wherever they want, but without a willing co-conspirator to host them, they would fade away. Oh, I forgot to mention that all those American spammers sending spam to Hong Kong are probably getting the addresses from a CD-ROM of Chinese email addresses I saw advertised on the China Netcom address. Can we buy one of those disks to send "Free Tibet" messages sent through Netcom's servers?
  2. Since 90% of the spam I receive (in Hong Kong) is advertising US companies, perhaps it would be more useful if the rest of the world stopped doing business with the USA. Good point. But I think one key difference is that our government has made a legislative effort (albeit a lame one) to address the problem. If China wanted to solve their spam problem, they are one of the few countries in a position to do so overnight. It's a lot easier to shut-down a spamhaven than a student democracy protest. They're already shutting-down anyone that allows access to computer games that are unfavorable to their politics, or anyone who sends emails saying that Tibet should be free. If they're going to be a repressive facist regime, then for once it should work to the world's favor. The only answer is, the Chinese government likes it that way. Our government does not-- we're just too inept to do anything effective about it. Also, I make distinctions between China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Taiwan is not China, and Hong Kong is still playing by a shrinking set of different rules. I have gotten very little spam from Hong Kong. And it's not so much a matter of where the spam email is coming from that frustrates me, as the fact that the spamvertised sites are almost always in China. You won't find very many hosts in the US that don't delete spammer's websites. We just have a whole lot of exploitable open-relays due to negligence and sloppiness and short-sidededness. But there are companies in China that lovingly coddle spammers and couldn't care less about spam complaints. That is the key issue: Who is hosting their sites, who is providing aid and comfort. They can send all the email they want, from wherever they want, but without a willing co-conspirator to host them, they would fade away.
  3. Just a small detail ... but there is a lot of that stuff actually manufactured there .. You could refuse to sell the stuff, but what would stop the same items from disappearing from a loading dock somewhere along the line? I know it would only be a symbolic gesture, at best. It's too bad the U.N. can't send in "spam Inspectors."
  4. Apparently, AOL and their ilk have their tipping point set at a very high level. They think they are (or soon will be) a monopoly, and that we're stuck with them. My recent dealings with them as a case in point, "No, we promise to fix the problem, but we refuse to have anyone get back to you about it." AOL has abandoned any pretense of caring about their customers (what else is new?) It helps to know there is a website that tells you how to swear at someone in Hindi. http://www.insults.net/html/swear/hindi.html I also vaguely remember a phrase one of my counselors at summer camp taught us once (I'm reaching back about 20 years into my memory, so please take that into account). It was something like: Bagwhan d'or or bagall rhat dori... Supposed to be, "God's worst nightmare run amok" It's not necessarily an insult, but colorful. Again, I hadn't thought about that phrase in 20 years, so it probably isn't anywhere near accurate. I just hope I didn't accidentally say something really vulgar. Since AOL doesn't care to listen to their customers, I would hesitate to guess any other means of bringing them to their tipping point. I believe we already have a ban on technology exports to China of computer technology that could be used in weapons systems. How about an embargo of equipment that can be used to send spam? I noticed that Cisco seems to be very proud of sending their routers to China Netcom. I wish they would stop. It would be nice to stop selling routers, servers, computers, modems, etc. to China.
  5. But if johnsmith <at> aol ever figures out that you're behind his sudden increase in his spam load ....<g> Gee whiz, I didn't think to check if there really was a JohnSmith <at> aol.com How about we use an example that couldn't possibly trouble anyone. Maybe we should use ScottRichterNOSPAM422[at]Yahoo.com as an example, instead of JohnSmithNOSPAM[at]aol.com Or maybe Scott_NO_HIGH_VOLUME_EMAIL_DEPLOYMENT_Richter422[at]yahoo.com
  6. Yes, I did post it a while back, but it was in an old thread that nobody seemed to be reading any more (and it didn't get any feedback) so I was hoping it would be OK to re-post in a more active thread. I hope that wasn't a terrible breach of netiquite?
  7. I wasn't thinking in terms of testing whether the spammers had the technology to remove NOSPAM from an email address and such. I was thinking in terms of, have they made a deliberate effort to harvest and exploit email addresses that are obviously intended to be "opted-out." The answer of course would be yes, but I think it would be more damning as evidence of misconduct if we had spamtraps to demonstrate that activity. Then again, to paraphrase Scott Richter, perhaps the email addresses should be something like: John_NO_HIGH_VOLUME_EMAIL_DEPLOYMENT_smith[at]aol.com (remove "no high volume email deployment" from address). I was also thinking that instead of having a reporting system that sends a spam complaint to the host of each spamvertised website, you could have a system that sends all spam complaints to all websites that were spamvertised that day. In other words, if a series of spamtraps get 1,000 spams one day from 100 different hosting servers, each of those 100 hosts gets copies of all 1,000 spams.
  8. Would it be a good idea to purchase a spam list from a company, and then use it to send a spam saying: "I bought your email address from this spammer. Here is his email address." "He says you opted-in." "Call him here, at his home phone number, and opt-out." "If you live in his neighborhood, this is his address if you want to stop by and chat."
  9. In case anyone is interested, I located a spammer's database of affiliates left on an open web page in the google cache. There are about 6,000 contacts in it with name, email, phone number, and the particular spam program they are enrolled in. I could post it here, email it, whatever, if someone is interested. I already provided a copy to the lawyer representing AOL in their lawsuits against the spammers, and he seemed pretty pleased with it, but too busy to talk much about it. I found it because my name was in it-- the bastards caught me in a phishing scheme along with seven other people who thought they were dealing with McAfee. I can tell, because while everyone else is labeled with things like "Downline Builder," the seven other suckers and I are labeled "McAfee." I feel stupid that I was one of only eight people dumb enough to fall for it.
  10. Has anyone else noticed that AOL Time Warner is pursuing business partnerships with the very same spam-havens hosting the spammers they are suing? That's like the cops going into a crack house and arresting the drug addicts, while they give the operators of the crack house a big loan to expand their business. I refer in particular to America OnLine's dealings with China Telecom and Netcom. And the last time I checked, Yahoo! was already partnered with Verio, another major spam-mill-- yet Yahoo! is also suing verio-hosted spammers. AOL confirmed looking into this Faustian bargain as far back at least as March 2003 http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/m...30328bus17.html http://www.etexpo.com/shownews.asp?ID=276 “We’re talking about business (with China Telecom and Netcom), but we didn’t talk about a partnership yet,” she said. The AOL spokesman confirmed that the venture was looking at possibly bringing in an additional partner. As of March 2004, AOL appears to be courting the same strange bedfellows http://www.chinesesource.com/get_detail.cfm?id=1040 http://www.newsgd.com/business/enterprise/200403010031.htm "Likely candidates could include China's mobile phone giants of China Mobile (Hong Kong) Ltd and China Unicom Ltd; and its top two fixed line carriers, China Telecom and China Netcom, which have both spent millions of dollars over the last two years to build out their high-speed Internet networks. " And then there's the fact that one of AOL's board members is on something like The U.S. China Board of Trade. I forget her name, but the information is somewhere on my other computer. She was also something like "trade ambassador" to China. And I bet if we dug around a little, we would find that AOL already has relationships with some of the other foreign spam mills, particularly in Italy and Korea. Does anyone want to resarch and publish on this with me? Specifically, which of the spammers AOL is suing are hosted on the spam havens that AOL has (or is pursuing) partnerships with. These lawsuits against spammers by AOL are just window-dressing. They're blowing smoke to hide the fact that they are not only doing squat to stop spam, they are also actively pursuing alliances with the source. If AOL really wanted to stop spam, they would not only stop pursuing business with spam mills, but block all traffic from them. AOL knows China Telecom and Netcom are the ones sending most of the spam to AOL accounts. They know what to do about it, but they won't. I say, let's call them to task for it.
  11. One thing I have been wondering about is the effectiveness of email addresses like: JohnsmithNOSPAM[at]aol.com (remove the words "no spam" from the email address" Or John Smith at AOL dot com Do many spammers actually spam those addresses? Do we / should we set spam traps like those?
  12. I'm sorry, but this guy from Rumania is running a mail server through a dial-up for a "school project" and he won't tell us the IP addresses he is using, or the name of his ISP? And his project is to create a system to control home appliances by email from anywhere in the world, yet he can't figure out how to keep his email from bouncing? And, I presume, if he is testing his "project," he would be sending email to willing participants using his client software. HE HAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO BE SENDING EMAIL TO ANYONE WHO HAS NOT "WHITELISTED" HIM, OR FOR THAT MATTER, TO ANYONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW HIM. My B.S. meter is going off the scale. When he says he wants to control home appliances, does he really mean, "take control" by using a trojan horse? I am absolutely CERTAIN the guy is lying. And I would bet that his "project" is to send a trojan horse that will allow him to control X-10 modules on infected computers. Modules controling, for example, lighting, security systems, and cameras. Imagine if, before robbing a house, you could access cameras in the house to see if anyone is home and to scout likely locations where the valuables may be. Then, you turn off all the lights and disable the alarm system. Most likely though, he just wants to see naked people. Is there a way to check the SpamCop report logs to see if there is any activity consistent with this? Maybe HackerWatch can help?
  13. New rule: Spammers will object when you do the same things to them that they do to you-- including, but not limited to, having to receive email they do not want.
  14. Has anyone else noticed that AOL Time Warner is pursuing business partnerships with the very same spam-havens hosting the spammers they are suing? That's like the cops going into a crack house and arresting the drug addicts, while they give the operators of the crack house a big loan to expand their business. I refer in particular to America OnLine's dealings with China Telecom and Netcom. And the last time I checked, Yahoo! was already partnered with Verio, another major spam-mill-- yet Yahoo! is also suing verio-hosted spammers. AOL confirmed looking into this Faustian bargain as far back at least as March 2003 http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/m...30328bus17.html http://www.etexpo.com/shownews.asp?ID=276 “We’re talking about business (with China Telecom and Netcom), but we didn’t talk about a partnership yet,” she said. The AOL spokesman confirmed that the venture was looking at possibly bringing in an additional partner. As of March 2004, AOL appears to be courting the same strange bedfellows http://www.chinesesource.com/get_detail.cfm?id=1040 http://www.newsgd.com/business/enterprise/200403010031.htm "Likely candidates could include China's mobile phone giants of China Mobile (Hong Kong) Ltd and China Unicom Ltd; and its top two fixed line carriers, China Telecom and China Netcom, which have both spent millions of dollars over the last two years to build out their high-speed Internet networks. " And then there's the fact that one of AOL's board members is on something like The U.S. China Board of Trade. I forget her name, but the information is somewhere on my other computer. She was also something like "trade ambassador" to China. And I bet if we dug around a little, we would find that AOL already has relationships with some of the other foreign spam mills, particularly in Italy and Korea. Does anyone want to resarch and publish on this with me? Specifically, which of the spammers AOL is suing are hosted on the spam havens that AOL has (or is pursuing) partnerships with. These lawsuits against spammers by AOL are just window-dressing. They're blowing smoke to hide the fact that they are not only doing squat to stop spam, they are also actively pursuing alliances with the source. If AOL really wanted to stop spam, they would not only stop pursuing business with spam mills, but block all traffic from them. AOL knows China Telecom and Netcom are the ones sending most of the spam to AOL accounts. They know what to do about it, but they won't. I say, let's call them to task for it.
  15. Type of account not specified .. but a filtered e-mail account has the capability of obtaining the e-mail directly from the AOL InBox ..??? Unfortunately, that is the way AOL has been formatting the incoming headers. My suspicion is that AOL is deliberately obfuscating INCOMING email headers. Hence, the "structural problems." The AOL Communicator program I am using is an IMAP application: http://www.aolepk.com/communicator/factsheet.html Easy management of multiple mailboxes in one place allows members to read and send e-mail messages from all of their AOL Screen Names as well as standards-based e-mail accounts, such as POP and IMAP, from a single application. No more logging in to multiple accounts to check various mailboxes. For More Information Jaymelina Esmele America Online, Inc. (703) 265-1746 My AOL email is configured to automatically block messages from anyone not in my address book. This has stopped working. spam from strangers is suddenly showing up in my inbox. I sent an email from my Spamcop email account to my AOL account and tried to submit a spam report. It didn't work. So, it is not a clever trick that the spammers are using. The problem effects all email inbound to my AOL account. So, either I am being stupid and screwing things up, or else AOL has deliberately done something to hinder us from reporting incoming spam. Neither one would surprise me, as I have been known to be stupid, and AOL has been known to be a bunch of assholes. I'm going to try retreiving my AOL mail through Eudora or Outlook and see how that goes, but I am not hopeful. My guess is that the obfuscation occurs before I read the mail off the server. But it's worth a try. Thanks!
  16. ...now for some reason the original poster would be "forced" to read an additional 100 postings that have no direct bearing on the original question?... Wow, that is inconvenient. It's almost as inconvenient as being forced to receive hundreds of emails you didn't want that have no direct bearing on what you're interested in. My heart bleeds.
  17. Since you are in Korea, and we are not, perhaps you could locate their circuit breaker box and do us all a favor? Or visit their office and scream and yell at them in person. Or, you could blacklist all of Korea by default and whitelist only those people you know you want email from. You can also get multiple "disposable" email addresses from www.netmails.net, and give one unique address to each contact.
  18. Oh, I almost forgot. Here is the text of the email: cough bitter copy wet prose new face color danger you crime kind simple money blue hospital arch bent turn screw V1cod1n,Xan3x,C1al1s, No Prior P,re,scription requir3d! ass3as3.com smell roll ball scale angle smell disease plough/plow back poison chemical quick round framegarden attention growth thought free well mixed fowl clean where mountain bottle liquid go north news rhythm fact shelf humorice simple tongue support north cheese to apparatus crime linen bulb trade spade come ring bulb unit bit basin regret disease
  19. OK, I've tried everything I can think of to use SpamCop to report the spam I receive at my AOL address. It used to work a few months ago, but not anymore. Now, whenever I try, I get a message "No source IP address found, cannot proceed" This is what I have tried: 1) Hitting the "forward" button to the reporting address. 2) Hitting "View Source" and pasting it into the SpamCop form. 3) Hitting "View Source," copying the data to the clipboard, hitting forward, and then pasting the sourcecode at the begining of the email, and then submitting via email. 4) Hitting "View Source" and then copying it into the reporting form along with the text of the email. I've tried reporting my own email from my Spamcop address to see if maybe it is a clever trick that the spammers are using-- it is not. I can't report my own emails. I've tried accessing the emails either directly from the AOL program, or from the AOL Communicator program-- doesn't work either way. And don't laugh, but yes, I did contact AOL tech support. The results were predictable: Me: spam is bypassing my email setting that is supposed to limit email to only people in my address book or on my buddy list. AOL: I am sorry you are having trouble. We'll have someone look into it. Me: Also, is AOL stripping the IP addresses from incoming emails, or have they reformatted them? I'd like to be able to report the spam to SpamCop, but it says the messages do not have valid IP addresses. AOL: I am sorry you are having trouble. We'll have someone look into it. Me: So, is the thing with the IP addresses a bug, or something AOL is doing on purpose? AOL: I am sorry you are having trouble. We'll have someone look into it. Me: That's nice. When will they get back to me and tell me what is wrong, and what I have to do to fix it. AOL: They won't. Me: Why? AOL: Because we don't do that. You will know the problem is fixed when you stop getting spam. Me: But how will I know what to do about the incomplete headers? AOL: I am sorry you are having trouble. We'll have someone look into it, but we won't tell you anything. Me: This makes me very mad. I want someone at AOL to contact me. AOL: We really don't care. We're AOL, and we're a bunch of dickheads. Thank you for throwing your problem over the wall at us so we can pretend to do something. Me: But I want to know how I can report spam mail to the FTC and to SpamCop. Will someone tell me how to fix it? AOL: Absolutely not. We don't want you reporting your AOL spam to anyone else. It might undermine our PR effort to sue the spammers hosted by the same companies in China that we are pursuing business contracts with. If Yahoo! can do business with Verio, AOL can do business with China Netcom. We don't want the FTC and SpamCop to mess with that. Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time. Me: You suck. I hate AOL. AOL: Yes, we know. We like it that way. Have a good day. Sucker. Anyway, here is some sample data in case it helps: -AOL-UID: 488.548849309 X-AOL-DATE: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:19:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time Return-Path: <dkftcohy[at]compuserv.cnb.net> Received: from rly-xm05.mx.aol.com (rly-xm05.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.106]) by air-xm03.mail.aol.com (v99_r4.3) with ESMTP id MAILINXM33-61340aa1af72c3; Tue, 18 May 2004 10:19:08 -0400 Received: from compuserv.cnb.net (p8bc6e9.onenum03.ap.so-net.ne.jp [210.139.198.233]) by rly-xm05.mx.aol.com (v99_r4.3) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXM55-61340aa1af72c3; Tue, 18 May 2004 10:18:42 -0400 ed: from fly-p75.circle.digiphoto.net ([21.53.6.71]) by tnx5-h411.digiphoto.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Tue, 18 May 2004 16:12:50 -0400 From: heidi Hanford <dkftcohy[at]compuserv.cnb.net> To: <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x> Subject: salt strange Hydr0cod0n3 polish Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:26:31 -0400 EST Message-ID: <7417_______________________1986[at]female-oi9.digiphoto.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--juqubxmtb_1084911540" X-AOL-IP: 210.139.198.233 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) View entire message Parsing header: 0: Received: from rly-xm05.mx.aol.com (rly-xm05.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.106]) by air-xm03.mail.aol.com (v99_r4.3) with ESMTP id MAILINXM33-61340aa1af72c3; Tue, 18 May 2004 10:19:08 -0400 Internal handoff or trivial forgery 1: Received: from compuserv.cnb.net (p8bc6e9.onenum03.ap.so-net.ne.jp [210.139.198.233]) by rly-xm05.mx.aol.com (v99_r4.3) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXM55-61340aa1af72c3; Tue, 18 May 2004 10:18:42 -0400 Hostname verified: p8bc6e9.onenum03.ap.so-net.ne.jp Possible forgery. Supposed receiving system not associated with any of your mailhosts Will not trust anything beyond this header No source IP address found, cannot proceed. CLICK 'BACK' BUTTON TO RETURN TO SPAMCOP ################################################################################ X-AOL-UID: 488.548849309 X-AOL-DATE: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:19:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time Return-Path: <dkftcohy[at]compuserv.cnb.net> Received: from rly-xm05.mx.aol.com (rly-xm05.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.106]) by air-xm03.mail.aol.com (v99_r4.3) with ESMTP id MAILINXM33-61340aa1af72c3; Tue, 18 May 2004 10:19:08 -0400 Received: from compuserv.cnb.net (p8bc6e9.onenum03.ap.so-net.ne.jp [210.139.198.233]) by rly-xm05.mx.aol.com (v99_r4.3) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXM55-61340aa1af72c3; Tue, 18 May 2004 10:18:42 -0400 ed: from fly-p75.circle.digiphoto.net ([21.53.6.71]) by tnx5-h411.digiphoto.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Tue, 18 May 2004 16:12:50 -0400 From: heidi Hanford <dkftcohy[at]compuserv.cnb.net> To: <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x>, <x> Subject: salt strange Hydr0cod0n3 polish Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:26:31 -0400 EST Message-ID: <7417_______________________1986[at]female-oi9.digiphoto.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--juqubxmtb_1084911540" X-AOL-IP: 210.139.198.233 X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) ----juqubxmtb_1084911540 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PEhUTUw+DQpjb3VnaCBiaXR0ZXIgY29weSB3ZXQgcHJvc2UgbmV3IGZhY2UgY29sb3IgZGFu Z2VyIHlvdSBjcmltZSBraW5kIHNpbXBsZSBtb25leSBibHVlIGhvc3BpdGFsIGFyY2ggYmVu dCB0dXJuIHNjcmV3IA0KPGJyPiA8YnI+DQoNCg0KPGgzPg0KPGJyPg0KVjFjb2QxbixYYW4z eCxDMWFsMXMsICBObyBQcmlvciAgUCxyZSxzY3JpcHRpb24gcmVxdWlyM2QhDQo8YnI+DQph c3MzYXMzLmNvbSANCjxCUj4NCjwvaDM+DQo8QlI+DQpzbWVsbCByb2xsIGJhbGwgc2NhbGUg YW5nbGUgc21lbGwgZGlzZWFzZSBwbG91Z2gvcGxvdyBiYWNrIHBvaXNvbiBjaGVtaWNhbCBx dWljayByb3VuZCBmcmFtZWdhcmRlbiBhdHRlbnRpb24gZ3Jvd3RoIHRob3VnaHQgZnJlZSB3 ZWxsIG1peGVkIGZvd2wgY2xlYW4gd2hlcmUgbW91bnRhaW4gYm90dGxlIGxpcXVpZCBnbyBu b3J0aCBuZXdzIHJoeXRobSBmYWN0IHNoZWxmIGh1bW9yaWNlIHNpbXBsZSB0b25ndWUgc3Vw cG9ydCBub3J0aCBjaGVlc2UgdG8gYXBwYXJhdHVzIGNyaW1lIGxpbmVuIGJ1bGIgdHJhZGUg c3BhZGUgY29tZSByaW5nIGJ1bGIgdW5pdCBiaXQgYmFzaW4gcmVncmV0IGRpc2Vhc2UgDQo8 L1U+PC9QPjwvRk9OVD48L0hUTUw+DQo= ----juqubxmtb_1084911540--
  20. As a Public Relations person myself, I would argue that a PR Agency is allowed to "generate" lists, in a sense. The poster is refering to The Bacon's Media Directory, a database of newspaper contacts who-- by nature of their jobs-- have agreed to receive email from Public Relations professionals, on topics of interest to their specialty. As an analogy, your State Representative has agreed to receive emails from people living in their legislative district regarding, for example, pending legislations and policies. A list of your State Reps and Senators can be "generated" from various sources, including government websites. By accepting the position of Senator or Representative, those people have "opted-in" to receiving emails from you regarding everything from paving your street to constitutional issues. Another example: Human Resorce personnel and Executive Recruiters are automatically "opted-in" to receiving your resume or job application-- as long as it is relevent. It is assumed, by default, that employers seeking employees want to hear from employees seeking employers. It is assumed by default that people reporting news want to hear from people who want to give them news. Editors and journalists rely heavily upon information supplied to them by Public Relations agencies. In fact, much of the "news" you read is actually a collection of Press Releases from PR firms, that may (or may not) have been modified or expanded upon by someone at a newspaper. Many press releases are just printed verbatim in newspapers and magazines. As an example, see the "special" sections in The Metro. All press releases are requied to have correct contact information for media professionals to follow-up. It is not only expected, but is in the best interest of the PR agency. This arrangement is agreed upon by both the PR agencies and the media because it makes everyone happy, without the need for a "confirmed opt-in." When done responsibly, it is a perfectly symbiotic relationship. In the best case scenario, an agency sends a press release to a newspaper, a reporter from the paper calls the agency to follow-up. The paper requests a complete Media Kit-- an expensive, fancy, detailed look at the company and/or product. Better still, the paper might send a reporter out to the company to do an interview and write a feature article on how wonderful their product is. A press release from a fake email address, with fake or absent contact information is useless to all parties concerned. There is no way for the paper to verify the information in the release, and there is no way for the PR agency to follow-up and get better exposure. So, The Bacons Directory is really an opt-in list of professionals who have agreed to receive on-topic emails, faxes, phonecalls and mailings. It is up to the PR professionals to use that list responsibly. In addition, there are guidelines established by The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) at www.prsa.org . If someone sends a press release about a new medical procedure to every single contact at The New York Times-- including the sports reporter, astrologer, and subscription manager-- then yes, they are spamming, and the paper will probably block them. And I can guarantee you that paper will never print their article. If someone sends Car and Driver Magazine a release about the new deacon at their church, then yes, that is spamming, and they will get blacklisted. If a medical company is sending press releases about a new medical study to science, medical, and health magazines, that is fine. If they send it to the medical editor at the New York Times, that is fine. If their press releases is about the latest developments in penis enlargement, then chances are that members of the legitimate press will individually blacklist and block them.
×
×
  • Create New...