Is "permission based marketer" another way to say spammer?

---

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:44:33 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
Cc: declan@well.com
Subject: Re: [IP and Politech] "Permission-based email marketers" confused 
about CAN SPAM law [sp]

Sigh.  "Permission-based email marketers" is merely a fancy term for 
"spammers".

As in, for example:

 > loren@uptilt.com

Uptilt.com?  Ah, yes.  Spammers.  Already noted on at least these lists of
spammer domains:

         http://obob.manilasites.com/
         http://geocities.com/filterlists/domainnames.txt
         http://www.river.com/ops/spam/bad-domains.txt
         http://www.spamblocked.com/killfile
         http://www.tls.cena.fr/%7Eboubaker/JunkTrap/domains.blacklist
         http://www.znet.com/blocked-domains.html

A bit of discussion about their spamming operation:

         http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=uptilt.com&btnG=Google+Search&meta=group%3Dnews.admin.net-abuse.email

Some example sightings of spam from them:

         http://groups.google.com/groups?q=uptilt.com+group:news.admin.net-abuse.sightings&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=news.admin.net-abuse.sightings&safe=off&sa=G&scoring=d

The most recent spam from them (from the link just above): January 28, 2004:

         http://groups.google.com/groups?q=uptilt.com+group:news.admin.net-abuse.sightings&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=news.admin.net-abuse.sightings&safe=off&scoring=d&selm=20040129225721.918CD1BDE7B%40kalyani.oryx.com&rnum=1

Some example sightings of spam from one of their other domains (up0.net):

         http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=up0.net&btnG=Google+Search&meta=group%3Dnews.admin.net-abuse.sightings

Admits renting lists of addresses (and then trying to scrub them) in this 
thread:

         http://www.mail-archive.com/spamcon-marketing@spamcon.org/msg00003.html

And so on.

Oh, they might very well comply with YOU-CAN-SPAM: don't know, don't care.
What I care about is that they have a long history of spamming and have
thus earned permanent blocking in all mail systems under my control.

---Rsk

---

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:18:14 -0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
From: "Brian W. Antoine" <abuse@windwireless.net>
Subject: Re: [Politech] "Permission-based email marketers" confused
   about CAN SPAM law [sp]

At 07:42 AM 1/28/04, you wrote:
 >            The federal CAN-SPAM law took effect on January 1, and is 
intended to curb the proliferation of unsolicited emails. CAN-SPAM contains 
requirements that must be met by all mailers whether an email message is 
unsolicited or permission based.  Companies sending unsolicited emails must 
include a clear notice that the message being sent is an advertisement or 
solicitation, among other requirements.

   And working at the abuse desk of an ISP, the only effect I've seen is
that it makes idiots easier to identify.  The true spammers have no
intention of obeying the law, but I've see a few companies who took the
passage of I-CAN-SPAM as permission to SPAM as long as they complied
with the opt-out rules of the law.

   They get their a slightly different bounce message than our standard
one as we blacklist them until the heat death of the universe.

---

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:25:47 -0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
From: Steve Schear <s.schear@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Politech] "Permission-based email marketers" confused
   about CAN SPAM law [sp]


>In a new benchmark audit of 100+ major email marketers, 95 percent include 
>an unsubscribe process, as mandated by the law.  At the same time, just 56 
>percent were in compliance with one of the simplest aspects of CAN-SPAM  
>the new requirement to add a postal mailing address.  The informal survey 
>will be replicated later in Q1, to determine changes in compliance patterns.

The new law requires a "valid postal address".  From the USPS perspective 
this means an address which can receive postal deliveries.  The law does 
not state that this address must be valid for the SENDER.

steve
Posted by Declan McCullagh on Jan 30, 2004