Rebuttal to: NEXTEL Spams with Paper

We're always happy to receive comments on our 60-Second Windows, and this one is particularly welcome because it poses some thought provoking arguments against my #159 "NEXTEL Spams with Paper." We get many that agree and say "right on" but when one like this comes along, I like to share it.

Dave wrote in to say:

  > Your article on the Nextel spam is not only uninspired dribble, 
  > but a complete waste of time. You must have either too much time on your 
  > hands, or too much anger built up inside of you to even contemplate the 
  > moronic actions you took to "resolve" the spam issue...

I'll pick up here with my reply, including Dave's continuing comments.
 

Too much time? Not a chance.
Too much anger? Probably.
 
Yes, I'm angry that I have to sift through 200 to 400 spams each morning, and each afternoon to pick out the good email. Yes, I've probably become obsessed with spam, and should retire, cancel all my email addresses, and enjoy life for the few years I've got left in this world.

  > So you got a spam mail sent to you with a non-existent name on it. 
  > WHO CARES? 
  > Nextel probably has no knowledge as to how "manager" got included 
  > on a mailing list that they probably purchased.  

I believed it was a significant "mistake."
With the way the spam industry is going, in just a year or so EVERYONE will care. Unless, of course, something is done about it.
Imagine everyone getting paper mailings to all the names the spammers have applied to people's domains using the dictionary method????
      Perhaps I didn't make the situation clear: The paper mail was based on a non-existent name which was not literally connected with our business. A female first and last name to which they arbitrarily attached the title "Manager". This is clear indication that someone had to harvest the email address from an old web page, then put it with our postal mailing address. It was an intentional act, which turns out to be a deceptive act, defrauding the buyer of the list.
      This is significant because if the 'list' industry is going to start basing paper 'junk' mailings on email addresses gathered by a spammer, it could become ridiculous. I've seen dozens of names attached to the domain because of "dictionary" spamming.

• Bad for the advertiser - who pays for empty addresses
• Bad for the environment - thousands of pieces of trash mail
• Bad for business and commerce - in terms of lost productivity

The only 'good' thing about it is it possibly will help our ailing postal system with more revenue.
      It's also very significant because it provides a hard paper trail to the list provider -- who obtained the name from web harvesting. As of July 1st, that is a Felony in the state of Virginia. We contacted NEXTEL in order to attempt to locate the list seller, and thereby apprehend the spammer. I've kept all related spam, and have numerous spams to that address, so, according to the attorneys, we now have solid evidence for litigation. And, it's been my goal to litigate a spam case in Virginia to 'test' the new law. (By the way, litigation includes a "Private Right To Action" which means we can be awarded damages, court and attorney fees in the suit!)

  > Besides that, could you please define reputable spam 
  > list distributor for me? 

Yes, a contradictory phrase I agree. I should rephrase it. If I weren't trying to maintain some degree of dignity, I would say: "The only GOOD spammer is a DEAD spammer" ... but I won't.
 

A "reputable" list distributor is one who has obtained permissions from the people on the list to send mail, and provide the list to other vendors. And, yes, it's considered a reputable business -- though many disagree -- quite a few of them are making quite a lot of money. (See the definition of spam)

  > Anyone who sells lists of names, emails, or mailing addresses 
  > for the purpose of advertising is far from reputable.  
  > Even so, I don't go out and investigate every single spam letter 
  > that shows up in my mail box from Columbia House or Publishers 
  > Clearing House.  

Agreed. They're usually to valid names, or "occupant" at this address, so we've been conditioned to ignoring them. However it is a LEGAL practice with a huge industry built around it.
      The name on the mailer however caught my attention. I knew immediately it was from a spam harvester.

  > Maybe you should take a walk and enjoy the world outside your 
  > steel and concrete tomb and see that the world has bigger issues 
  > to worry about and resolve than how a cell phone company sent 
  > you an advertisement to a non-existent name.  
  > Get a life and please, for the rest of the world's sake, don't 
  > waste precious Internet space and bandwidth on your useless, 
  > uneducated opinions.  

Take a walk? Excellent idea if it would just stop raining.
      The opinions are somewhat educated. I've spent thousands of hours tracking and researching spam, spammers and the spam laws. If you were with me at the FTC Spam Forum in May, you'd probably be on the same soap box.
      IMHO, anything that actively tries to educate and/or open people's eyes to the problems associated with spam is NOT wasted bandwidth. If you read some of those Blogs out there, you'll see some really useless use of bandwidth. However if you understand some of the warnings from the experts in the IT and security industry, with very valid proof of the threat of spam, you'll agree it promises to undermine the entire structure of the "bandwidth" you think I'm wasting.

  > On a side note, I find it somewhat ironic that, in responding to 
  > an editorial on unwanted spam mail, I am going to automatically 
  > "be subscribed to the Design Center Newsletter opt-in email list 
  > to receive our monthly newsletter" unless I read the fine print 
  > and specifically state to opt out. Needless to say, I choose to opt OUT.

Yes, thanks for reminding me, I should change that scheme. It was set up back in 1994 before the opt-in, opt-out, spam thing became an issue. However, it does ask you to indicate if you'd like to opt out, and you did, so you are.

Finally:

  > to even contemplate the moronic actions you took to "resolve" 
  > the spam issue. 

Please, Dave -- suggest other ways of taking action to "resolve the spam issue." that would not be "moronic." Email users all over the world are going to need all the help, and all the fresh ideas they can get once the spam plague really gears up. And, according to the experts, "you ain't seen nothin' yet!"
 

The real benefit here is that 60-Second Windows, once again, has worked. I voiced a situation and an opinion, and you responded in kind with your opinion -- and that's exactly the mission of 60-Second Windows - to offer thought provoking opinions and open dialogs between diverse peoples.
 

I thank you again for your comments, and input! I wish more people like you would step up to the plate and voice their opinions and help us all understand each other better.
 

Good day, and thanks for reading...

Please also read: #158 Email problems getting SoBig which also sheds light on real cause for concern about spam.

Got comments?