Jump to content

Open Relay Complaints


rooster

Recommended Posts

In the last month or so I have started getting OR spam promoting Costco and Home Depot. I assume you SC worthies are familiar with the, TargetDealz/44.you2q.com/Gateway, et.al spammer covens, and that it is worse than pointless to complain, or to, "unsubscribe", from their spam lists.

Since Costco and HDepot's marketing strategies endorse the use of open relays and forged header information, to my way of thinking, this serves to identify Costco and Home Depot with deceitful and fraudulent business practices, in addition to the, "Theft of (Internet) Services by those retained to promote their products and services.

I have been frustrated trying to find a responsible party at Costco or Home Depot to whom I might convey my observations. Googling their sites for contact vectors only got me as far as, "Site Error", alerts or forms requesting me to subscribe to newsletters or memberships. Phoning their head offices asking for information about complaining about UBE's, recycled me to spammers', "Unsubscribe", pages.

On the premise that their corporate inboxes are no more sacrosanct than my personal inbox, and reasoning that if they can employ people to harvest my email address, I conclude that I should be able to harvest theirs, at my convenience.

Is anyone compiling a directory of corporate spammers which features email vectors appropriate for victims to respond directly to the sponsors of such UBE's? After all, these sponsors are soliciting a response, and I feel a personal reply would enable me to better express my appreciation.

Happy trails,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you post a tracking URL of one or more of these spam messages. It would help us understand exactly what type of spam were are talking about.

Unfortunately I can not help with supplying any email contacts. Maybe some one else may be able to.

Thank you for posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you post a tracking URL of one or more of these spam messages.

30582[/snapback]

Like dbiel says ...

But if you want to go it alone - if, for instance, Costco.com is an actual offender, dnsstuff's other service indicates the customary "postmaster" and "abuse" addresses operate:

http://www.dnsreport.com/tools/dnsreport.c...main=Costco.com

... As is also confirmed by:

costco.com]http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/mail.ch?doma...buse[at]costco.com

If you want to abuse their actual executives, a heap of Googling would seem to be your lot - with some risk of hitting the wrong target if your research is inadequate (ie, is Costco.ca part of Costco.com, etc.?). Accepting your premise "they" are actually complicit, there will undoubtedly be feasible deniability measures in place, making the pestering of these good and hard-working folk, pillars of the community that they are, a criminal stalking matter if pushed too far (IMO).

Also, I should think many/most executives of major corporations run mail filters on a whitelist basis these days (if they haven't contacted you, forget trying to contact them, all you will get back are fake bounces - if you're fortunate - or silence). And/or their PAs would never let "distractions" through. Oh brave, new world ... Your best bet might be to persevere to find the telephone numbers/extensions which connect to real people. Or write snail mail with copies to consumer advocacy groups/authorities.

Needless to say, I don't know of anything quite like the data source you seek. Others may, of course, know better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are a couple of tracking urls for those interested. I would be interested in learning more about what Farelf meant when he said, "Accepting your premise "they" are actually complicit, ...". How is it they would not in some wise be complicit? I'm pretty sure TargetDealz isn't hawking their wares out of altruistic motives. If they are, then I am in serious need of a reality check.

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z789667219z84...ced7f13f949dd9z

From: Great Deal <TargetDealz[at]50.YOU2Q.COM> ([GARB][89.9%] Sams Club / Costco - Offer Confirmation #048Q-VBEC5735

Sams Club / Costco GiftCard OfferConfirmation #3658-VBEC5735

http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z789667220z6e...e78bf338e726b8z

From: Fix It Up <TargetDealz[at]12.YOU2Q.COM> ([GARB][94.7%] Home Depot- Offer Confirmation #048Q-VBEC5735 )

Home Depot GiftCard OrderConfirmation #3658-VBEC5735

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be inclined to believe the disclaimer: "RewardsGateway com is an independent rewards program and is not affiliated with any of the listed products or retailers." The spammers appear to be using gift cards from Sams Club, Costco, and Home Depot as enticements to get people to click on their links. What in those emails makes you think that Sams Club, Costco, and Home Depot are complicit? Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting. Wholesale Bandwidth spam.

Scott Richter was removed from Spamhaus and ROKSO last week because he supposedly proved to the owners he was not in the pam buisness anymore. I wouln't know because he is blocked permanently on our servers.

Here is part Steve's post:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/news.a...f0e620dc29dca70

You should post this proof in NANAE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff;

I took from the following that the $500 gift card has some commercial value, real or implied, and that at some point, the nameholder is contracted to honour it. In order to obtain a, "gift card", someone (Rewards Gateway?) would have to initiate a transaction of record before the asset can be transferred to the spamee. No matter how one slices it, Costco and Home Depot are benefitting and prudent accounting and marketing executives are going to be hip to the true nature of the schemes, plausible deniability notwithstanding.

<snip>

Rewards Gateway has given you this $500 Sams Club / Costco Gift Card just f=

or answering a 3-minute survey and following instructions on our website.

Thank you and ENJOY!

Sincerely,

Mary Henderson

Customer Service Rep.

Rewards Gateway

<snip>

Or not???

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Merlyn;

Thanks for the link.

I haven't posted anything on NANAE yet, but I'll give it a shot.

Happy trails,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested in learning more about what Farelf meant when he said, "Accepting your premise "they" are actually complicit, ...". How is it they would not in some wise be complicit?

30644[/snapback]

Meaning simply there (was) an unplumbed gulf between conjecture and evidence. Insofar as I understand the breed at all, I think that's something to do with how lawyers make their livings ;-)

You have provided new information now. Yes voucher schemes are "promotional" of their issuers. But, as such, they are presumably and to some extent tax-deductible and can be sold at discount to - and scattered about like confetti by - third parties for use as inducements by those third parties for whatever purposes they might have and with minimal prescription by the issuer. The "feasible deniability" thing, or a cost/benefit equation in some business plan, I still don't *know* (rule #1 notwithstanding).

Having said that, a $500 gift is pretty rich and I would personally be inclined to accept your premise of complicity. But that still doesn't make it uncontestable fact and I am not the one who would need to be convinced if push came to shove. Not meaning to be negative, just cautious. FWIW, I think you're right and I would love it if you could prove it to hammer down one more gopher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested in learning more about what Farelf meant when he said, "Accepting your premise "they" are actually complicit, ...". How is it they would not in some wise be complicit?

Meaning simply there (was) an unplumbed gulf between conjecture and evidence. Insofar as I understand the breed at all, I think that's something to do with how lawyers make their livings ;-)

You have provided new information now. Yes voucher schemes are "promotional" of their issuers. But, as such, they are presumably and to some extent tax-deductible and can be sold at discount to - and scattered about like confetti by - third parties for use as inducements by those third parties for whatever purposes they might have and with minimal prescription by the issuer. The "feasible deniability" thing, or a cost/benefit equation in some business plan, I still don't *know* (rule #1 notwithstanding).

Having said that, a $500 gift is pretty rich and I would personally be inclined to accept your premise of complicity. But that still doesn't make it uncontestable fact and I am not the one who would need to be convinced if push came to shove. Not meaning to be negative, just cautious. FWIW, I think you're right and I would love it if you could prove it to hammer down one more gopher.

30651[/snapback]

...Personally, absent more evidence, I'm still not buying the complicity argument -- it looks like it very well might be akin to a "joe job," especially as Costco is not generally known (AFAIK) for such business practices. Don't you need a membership to even buy something at Costco?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Steve;

Yes; but I'm not sure if that obscures the issue, or rather serves to clarify it. All my attempts to respond to, i.e., thwart, the spam, lead to membership applications or a Costco newsletter subscription. My mission (which I have decided to accept) is to find a way to contact Costco *without* vectoring through a mechanism which would make me, at least implicitly, complicit in providing personal info; thereby justifying having me on a spam list.

Without trying to appear too glib about it, it seems folly to me to have to fill out a membership application in order to establish that I don't want to be a member, or to fill out a newsletter subscription form to tell them I don't want to get newletters (or any promotional materials) from them. To my understanding, either would serve to alert that my email addy is, "a live one".

Further, since there is an initial membership fee and/or an annual fee to maintain a Costco membership, Costco must directly benefit from a transaction with the spamee before any, "Gift Card", would have an asset (redemption) value. Y'know; a variant of the old, "post hoc ergo propter hoc", fallacy.

Although it merely indicates complicity rather that proving it, consider: if someone, e.g. Gateway, was using Costco's corporate name for anything they felt was damaging, or involved uncountenanced contractual obligations, legal would be over them like stink on a skunk.

In order for Gateway to convey the rights and benefits of a Costco Gift Card, they must first posess these rights and benefits. If it is necessary to be a member of Costco in order to posess these rights and benefits, then Gateway would have to be an active member and demonstate legal title to these assets, each and severally with a stated value of $500. If only one voucher attaches to one membership, then you see the problem, eh?

If Gateway fails either test, then it is fraud, even if the card is in reality nothing more than, "confetti" on Costco's books.

There is usually a stated limit of how many discount vouchers may be claimed per member(ship). This is true even if you are a citizen at large clipping coupons on the kitchen table. If you clip a couple of thousand, "Buy One Quarter Pounder and Get One Free", coupons, and try to use them to promote you own business, Ronald McDonald, M.B.A, L.L.B., will use those big red shoes to tromp you flatter than a roadie toad, *unless* Mcdonalds felt they were deriving a signifigant material benefit and had agreed to it beforehand.

On the other hand, if Costco cannot establish the $500 redemption value while the Card bears their promissary, then they would be in a fix. This I really doubt, marketing subtleties aside.

Even though there might not be a 'prima facae' contract between Costco and Gateway, (Law & Order, episode 55), I 'conject' that a 'de facto' contract exists which derives from not having acted against Gateway, thereby giving them license to trade upon their name and promotional offerings as part of their ongoing business. Costco's Corporate name has a huge, "Goodwill", dollar figure on their financial statement, and no legal eagle would let it be used without due consideration.

To my mind, it is pointless to appeal to the integrity of the spammers to cease and desist, and it is inefficient to complain to ISPs and registrars since the real culprits are already using forgery and misrepresentations and will just move to a different launch pad. This brings me full circle back to Costco. Unless they are convinced that Gateway is harming them by causing their name to be associated with deceptive business practices and even, in a broad sense, internet fraud, then this operation will undoubtedly continue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````

Merlyn;

I went to the NANA Google Newsgroup Sites, reviewed the FAQs and Charter bumph, but couldn't decide just what and where to post. The site seems to me to be a tad formal and having a bent toward *nixies. Any suggestion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Steve;

Yes; but I'm not sure if that obscures the issue, or rather serves to clarify it. All my attempts to respond to, i.e., thwart, the spam, lead to membership applications or a Costco newsletter subscription. My mission (which I have decided to accept) is to find a way to contact Costco *without* vectoring through a mechanism which would make me, at least implicitly, complicit in providing personal info; thereby justifying having me on a spam list.

<snip>

30721[/snapback]

...I'm not clear on why you think you need to do this, unless we are able to establish that Costco is, indeed, complicit.
Further, since there is an initial membership fee and/or an annual fee to maintain a Costco membership, Costco must directly benefit from a transaction with the spamee before any, "Gift Card", would have an asset (redemption) value. Y'know; a variant of the old, "post hoc ergo propter hoc", fallacy.

30721[/snapback]

...Only relevant, again, if Costco is complicit. If, instead, this is merely a "joe job" and/ or phishing and/ or just an attempt to get your name or other personal information, it don't matter. I'm not sure what the post hoc fallacy has to do with this at all...it seems to imply that your assertion is jumping to a conclusion (which, actually, I am suggesting may be the case :) <g>).
Although it merely indicates complicity rather that proving it, consider: if someone, e.g. Gateway, was using Costco's corporate name for anything they felt was damaging, or involved uncountenanced contractual obligations, legal would be over them like stink on a skunk.

30721[/snapback]

...If they can find them. The fact that spam involving "innocent bystanders" is so persistent and prosecution of spammers so rare is evidence that this is difficult.
In order for Gateway to convey the rights and benefits of a Costco Gift Card, they must first posess these rights and benefits.

<snip>

30721[/snapback]

...Hey, wanna buy a bridge I just happen to own? :) <g>
If Gateway fails either test, then it is fraud, even if the card is in reality nothing more than, "confetti" on Costco's books.

<snip>

30721[/snapback]

...And if someone in authority can find them, they may have to pay (assuming they have any assets worth forfeiting). But see above regarding prosecution of spammers.
Even though there might not be a 'prima facae' contract between Costco and Gateway, (Law & Order, episode 55), I 'conject' that a 'de facto' contract exists which derives from not having acted against Gateway, thereby giving them license to trade upon their name and promotional offerings as part of their ongoing business. Costco's Corporate name has a huge, "Goodwill", dollar figure on their financial statement, and no legal eagle would let it be used without due consideration.

To my mind, it is pointless to appeal to the integrity of the spammers to cease and desist, and it is inefficient to complain to ISPs and registrars since the real culprits are already using forgery and misrepresentations and will just move to a different launch pad. This brings me full circle back to Costco. Unless they are convinced that Gateway is harming them by causing their name to be associated with deceptive business practices and even, in a broad sense, internet fraud, then this operation will undoubtedly continue.<snip>

30721[/snapback]

...Well, in principle, there is some justification for this. However, again, the chances of Costco finding the actual spammer is so remote that in the real world I conclude that your position is too great a reach. :) <g>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are probably best off calling the following, asking for the Corpoate Legal Dept., then asking for the person responsible for legally protecting the company's good name:

SAM'S CLUB: 1-888-746-7726 per http://www.samsclub.com/eclub/main_help.jsp?stg=STG11

Costco: Community Relations at (425) 313-6182 per http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?...rol-shareholder

Home Depot: Corporate Office at 770-433-8211 per http://www.homedepot.com/prel80/HDUS/EN_US...t%20Us&MID=9876

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...