lwc Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 My university requires us to give them our e-mail addresses, but then their site is stupid enough to let people in my class see each other's e-mail addresses and it even supplies a contact form. So what people did was starting clicking "send to all" in the site and what happens is that the "to" input field the form is filled up with 300 addresses of everyone right in plain view. That means 2 things: 1) It's copy and pasteable. 2) It actually sends the mail with 300 people in the "to" header. The stupid thing is the University actually gave us a professional mailing list. You know, one address sends to all. But the students, for whatever reason, simply refuse to use it! Now don't get me wrong. Most of these people actually send us material for the tests, but I simply refuse to accept the end justifies the means - at all costs. They have no right to steal and later spam because "it's for a good thing". 2) was at least easy to report to the University. So what people in my classs did was switching to method #1 and then used their own ways to send mail. Naturally for newbies, they still put the 300 people in the "to" header! I kept complaining to the University that their stupid site was exposing me to viruses (it only takes 1 person in the 300 to have a virus and since the "to" list is exposed...), but once people starting using method #1 they didn't care. So I started complaining to the ISPs of the senders quoting them clauses from their own contracts (at the same time I kept complaining to Spamgourmet). I kept saying to the ISPs "at least made them start using BCC!"). After a long fight, I won the battle and the ISPs at least made them use BCC. This was great because I actually started getting viruses prior to this point just because of the crazy exposure - 300 people in the "to" header - a couple of messages a day. But it wasn't enough (and it also meant the University was out of the picture as I could no longer prove the list was stolen from them once it was hidden in the BCC). Eventually maybe due to the complaints it stopped altogether. ...except one guy and his ISP - Bezeqint.net (that indeed made him start using BCC but refused to do anything further). I'm actually their user too so I thought a personal approach would help. Indeed, it at least got me a personal reply. "He said it's a mailing list for people he teaches and they were the ones joining it". I was freaked out! This was after I made it clear he STOLE the list. I even gave them the contact details of the people in the University in charge of the course to tell them there this is just a fellow student and not a teaching aid of any sorts! Come on, does Bezeqint actually fall for this guy's lies?! Then I gave them the contact details of the people in the University in charge of the site to verify with them the list matches one by one (same order even) the list from the site and there's no way it's some opt-in list of his. To which they said "he said he has no problem taking anyone off if they just request so". This was after they knew he STOLE this list AND after I quoted them their own contract that said opt-out lists are a major no-no. This is the biggest ISP in Israel and they answer me with comments like these?! I also reminded them - and like to tell you - there's a law proposal in Israel that wants to follow the European opt-in spam policy. So forget that it's against their own contract, what Bezeqint.net tells me (that opt-out lists are fine) would be illegal in the future! This didn't really impress them either... At this point they stopped replying personally. They never even replied to me after in a matter of minutes, that guy sent "his" list almost 20M worth of files in multiple messages. Anyway, all through this I kept reporting each new spam message to Spamgourmet, so how come Bezeqint.net never felt Spamgourmet's "wrath"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.