Ten years on, TEN PER CENT of retailers aren't obeying CAN-SPAM One in 10 of the world’s largest online retailers are sill violating the CAN-SPAM Act, a full 10 years after the US anti-spam legislation went into effect. The finding comes from an audit by the Online Trust Alliance (OTA), a non-profit with the mission to enhance online trust. They also found that 70 per cent of 200 online …
This post has been deleted by its author
I can say F*CK U iilii to rayban I would never buy their products.
I wish I could say that. I was doing OK until I got to "iilii". How do you pronounce that?
FWIW, I will never buy Rayban products either. Nothing to do with spam, just that I know how much a pair of sunglasses is actually worth.
This post has been deleted by its author
Like I said - a malformed hand. Not only does it have fingernails where there should be none (and none where there should be one), the hand also appears to have an extra finger (the thumb would normally be folded in behind the hand), so you'd 'see' three folded fingers, and one extended: it needs to be a 2-1-1 (or 1-1-2) pattern for the folded/extended fingers, depending which hand is being represented.
Mine's the anorak.
Can I name SAP as another? Seriously, screw them. Even ignoring the thousand other reasons to avoid anything even remotely related to SAP at all cost... their propaganda machine is on perpetual overdrive mode. And once they get hold of your E-Mail address you can start looking forward to receiving E-Mails from countless divisions from within SAP with a likelihood that each one has a different E-Mail domain to bombard you with their enormous heaps of Godzilla dung.
Alas, after numerous failed unsubscribe requests I have deemed it more appropriate to block all of SAP's marketing-related domain names and even *@sap.com itself. AND I made sure that each block resulted in a sweet and lovely "MAIL REJECTED" bounce rather than a silent drop.
This post has been deleted by its author
I look after the my company's email newsletter. Address come from self sign ups or prior business relationship only.
We include a *single* click unsub link which does exactly that.
This does catch us out now and again, as one company recently started inspecting links in emails at gateway via trend micro, and as a result the last mailshot we sent out unsubbed everyone in that domain.
We still decided it was better to keep the single click unsub link rather than make it harder for the user.
I guess we are in the 0.1% that arn't gits
"This does catch us out now and again, as one company recently started inspecting links in emails at gateway via trend micro, and as a result the last mailshot we sent out unsubbed everyone in that domain."
This same Trend Micro habit also _CONFIRMS_ mailing list signup requests, which in turn has led to numerous false positives on the MAPS DNSBL (Trend own MAPS and have done for a while)
I wouldn't have too much sympathy for those behind Trend Micro filters. Any damage they get is self inflicted.
(After trying to get this policy altered, JaNet (The UK academic network) dropped MAPS at the start of August (all zones were emptied at the start of September). There were at least 1500 institutions using MAPS via JaNet, so that has to be one of the largest "no confidence" votes I've seen in recent history. Spamhaus and several other DNSBLs continue to be usable by UK academia via JaNet agreements)
Opt-out doesn't work. Proving that someone broke the rules is too difficult and time consuming, and they've already made a profit by selling the lists on to an "unconnected" company.
Responsible marketers follow the rules, irresponsible markets don't follow the rules and don't get (consistently) punished.
At least in the US, no one. Spammers operate with near total impunity. The FTC's anti-spam activities are basically limited to maintaining a database of complaints that is available to local officials who elect to look at it on a purely voluntary basis.
At least in my state, state and local consumer protection activities are limited to taking the complaint and filing it with the FTC. The whole structure is carefully designed to create sources of revenue for government agencies and their selected contractors, while ensuring that none of them has any actual authority or capability for real enforcement.
"At least in the US, no one. Spammers operate with near total impunity"
CAN-SPAM was drafted and passed amazingly quickly, in order to defang California's restrictive antispam legislation which was about to pass into effect.
It's known in the spamfighter circles as "You CAN-SPAM" - it's still possible to breach it (forgery, spamming from an ISP with an antispam AUP, etc), but the only entities which can take action are ISPs/ESPs, or the FTC.
...and the internet ran on dial-up, I dealt with morons who would not honor my unsubscribe requests by replying to their emails and attaching a large file. Most outfits got NT Service Pack 3, pornographers got the entire text of the King James Bible (unzipped, of course). The emails rarely went through, the offending organization's servers usually puked when the upload was about half done but I never got any more spam from them.
You click on the 'unsubscribe' link and it takes you to a log-in page that you have to go through to det to the 'manage your account' bit.
But can you remember the username and password and do you really want to go through the 'forgot password' bit or can you even remember the email account or username you used to set up the account?
New filter time.
Just bin the buggers.
You click on the 'unsubscribe' link and it takes you to a log-in page that you have to go through to det to the 'manage your account' bit.
LinkedIn are the worst for this. Not only do they spam you with multiple unsolicited messages, but their unsubscribe link takes you to a login page. WTF? I don't have a f*cking LinkedIn account, and I sure as hell aren't creating one just to stop receiving your bloody sign up requests. Cnuts.
" I don't have a f*cking LinkedIn account, and I sure as hell aren't creating one just to stop receiving your bloody sign up requests. Cnuts."
In order to test things, I went through their signup process and oprted out of everything.
They still kept spamming that account and have done to this day.
"Could it be, perhaps, that some of these retailers are based outside the US and therefore not subject to US law?"
Long-arm statutes - if they do business in the USA (or with USA residents, as far as deliberately doing business with them), then they come under the law.
The FCC went after a British spam fax operation some years ago and collected quite a but of money. That pretty much put the idea of offshore spam fax (covered by TCPA) to bed.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
