Re: UKNM: Re: marketing spam

[Steve Bowbrick]

<

Version [dot] 32 [dot] 19980331002406 [dot] 00e6bca0mail2 [dot] info-com [dot] com

>

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Sender:

ownerchinwag [dot] com

Precedence: bulk

Reply-To:

uk-netmarketingchinwag [dot] com

At 17:27 31/03/98 +0100, Ross Sleight wrote:

>Steve,

>

>I wonder what the return actually is - in comparison to the return of

>mailing interested parties? And the number of pissed off people who

>would never touch your product or comapny again because they had to pay

>to connect to download their spam..what is the loss of future business?

>And what penalties you the spammer may have to pay?  One spam on one

>network then banned or fined etc.  


It's true, the return for a major brand (or any brand further up the food

chain than MAKE $$$ FAST) would be dreadful. It's also true that Spamford

and others are being stopped and the big spam outfits will probably start

to drop away now, but the fact remains that small-time, anonymous spam

using crudely harvested lists won't go away any time soon. If you're using

a spoofed domain you never see any returned mail. Likewise no one can kick

you off their network. I think underground spam has a lot of legs - it's

just such a good way of reaching mugs.


I bet you a tenner the BT Internet address you reported was spoofed. BT

will shrug and tell you they can't deal with it.


Apparently the next version of Sendmail may help here. It traps faked

addresses.


s

--

Steve Bowbrick                                      Webmedia Group

0171 494 3177                                         0468 257 570