Symantec employee threatens continued spamming
Peter Seebach
In article <gmcgath-ya0240800...@news.ma.ultranet.com>,
Gary McGath <gmc...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>I have just received the following, which claims to be from an "Anthony
>Perry" at Symantec. The message does appear to come from Symantec's server,
>but it's interesting that Perry doesn't identify his position with Symantec
>or his authority to make statements on their behalf. So this could be a
>disgruntled Symantec employee seeking revenge on the company as a whole or
>on the real Anthony Perry. If it's real, though, it says that Symantec has
>not been deterred by the outrage and intends to continue its spamming
>policy.
I've traded a couple of emails with him; he'll go so far as to apologize,
and he gets one point over the phone folks, because he admitted that symantec
may have been trying cross-marketing; trying to sell customers of one
product on another. He said he'd forward my comments (especially the
one where I pointed out I wouldn't have minded a postcard, because symantec
would have been paying for that postcard) to management folks.
I still want to hear from a manager.
-s
--
se...@plethora.net -- I am not speaking for my employer. Copyright '97
All rights reserved. Boycott Spamazon! End Spam. C and Unix wizard -
send mail for help, or send money for a consultation. Visit my new ISP
<URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam! Plethora . Net
Anthony Perry
Gary:
I am the acting Internet Architect for Symantec. If you do a whois on symantec
with the nic, you'll see my name, email, phone and fax numbers. It's a matter
of public record.
# whois symantec.com
Symantec Corp (SYMANTEC-DOM)
10201 Torre Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
Domain Name: SYMANTEC.COM
Administrative Contact:
Perry, Anthony (AP581) ape...@SYMANTEC.COM
408-446-7512 (FAX) 408-447-8400
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Domain Reg. (DR206-ORG) Dom...@SYMANTEC.COM
408-253-9600
Fax- 408-865-0819
Billing Contact:
Perry, Anthony (AP581) ape...@SYMANTEC.COM
408-446-7512 (FAX) 408-447-8400
Record last updated on 27-Jun-97.
Record created on 24-Nov-92.
Database last updated on 11-Feb-98 04:36:39 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.SYMANTEC.COM 198.6.49.5
NS2.SYMANTEC.COM 198.6.50.13
I can not speak if Symantec has or has not been deterred by the out lash for
the Internet Community. All that I can say is that Symantec does have bulk
emailer and does use them. I have posted on the Usenet both offical mass email
boxes.
I was on the committee against mass emailings. Symantec has chosen, at this
time, to do mass emailings. This is not to say that Symantec's policy in the
future may change.
The only solution that I can offer is that Symantec does have a "Never Email
Again" list. It is Symantec Policy to filter the outage email lists against
this list and remove the matches.
I want to reassure the Community that I am looking into both these spammings.
It looks like the one coming from bigfoot.com is not an official Symantec
posting. If this turns out to be the case, I will get our lawyers involved.
I hope that this clears up some of the confusion and concerns about Symantec's
postings. If not, please feel free to email or call me.
Anthony Perry
Symantec Corp.
Gary McGath wrote:
> I have just received the following, which claims to be from an "Anthony
> Perry" at Symantec. The message does appear to come from Symantec's server,
> but it's interesting that Perry doesn't identify his position with Symantec
> or his authority to make statements on their behalf. So this could be a
> disgruntled Symantec employee seeking revenge on the company as a whole or
> on the real Anthony Perry. If it's real, though, it says that Symantec has
> not been deterred by the outrage and intends to continue its spamming
> policy.
>
> >Return-path: <ape...@symantec.com>
> >Delivery-date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:10:42 -0500
> >Received: from Mailer.symantec.com (Mailer.symantec.com [198.6.49.5]) by
> >strato-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult.n14767) with ESMTP id NAA05030 for
> ><gmc...@ultranet.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:35:41 -0500 (EST)
> >Received: from symantec.com (host240-sub203.symantec.com [155.64.203.240])
> >by Mailer.symantec.com (8.8.4/8.7.6) with ESMTP id KAA07102 for
> ><gmc...@ultranet.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:36:06 -0800 (PST)
> >X-UIDL: 887226268.001
> >Message-ID: <34E1EF53...@symantec.com>
> >Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:34:59 -0800
> >From: Anthony Perry <ape...@symantec.com>
> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >To: Gary McGath <gmc...@ultranet.com>
> >Subject: Re: Spamed by Symantec
> >References: <88680556...@sparc.tibus.net>
> ><gmcgath-ya0240800...@news.ma.ultranet.com>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >X-UBE-Filtered: 2442209868
> >
> >I would suggest getting your email address on the "Never Email Me Again".
> >It's the only way to ensure we never email you again.
> >
> >http://www.symantec.com/help/subscribe.html
> >
> >Anthony Perry
> >Symantec Corp.
> >
> [My original message snipped]
>
> --
> Gary McGath gmc...@ultranet.com
> http://www.ultranet.com/~gmcgath
Eric B. Smith
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:01:25 -0500, gmc...@ultranet.com (Gary McGath)
wrote:
>I have just received the following, which claims to be from an "Anthony
>Perry" at Symantec. The message does appear to come from Symantec's server,
>but it's interesting that Perry doesn't identify his position with Symantec
>or his authority to make statements on their behalf. So this could be a
>disgruntled Symantec employee seeking revenge on the company as a whole or
>on the real Anthony Perry. If it's real, though, it says that Symantec has
>not been deterred by the outrage and intends to continue its spamming
>policy.
If you check the InterNIC registry on SYMANTEC.COM, you'll see that
Anthony is the administrative contact (I'll bet he wishes he weren't
right now).
I spent much of my day at work e-mailing hem with comments and
complaints and he really kept his cool. At first he didn't believe
that Symantec would really stoop to spamming, then he told me that he
spoke with marketing to find that they really were the ones who
started this mess.
He was kind enough to inform me that the removal instructions were
real (we've all heard that one before) and that they were legally
bound to removal (he says its in their policies and AUP, but couldn't
point me to them).
-- quote --
Eric:
Symantec's offical policy is that any and all broadcast email to
the Internet must be filtered against the "Never Email Again"
list. I was on the team that instituted it.
It's in the Symantec Internet Usage policy and in the draft of
the Internet Stragey. I am not sure how much more I can do to
reassure you that it's a valid list.
About BIGFOOT spam, I will see what I can do, promise!
I am not sure if I can get this on the WWW site in a week.
Corporate wheels are much longer then I would like to get these
types of items done.
-- end quote --
Anthony tried to put his reputation on the line with this one. :
-- quote --
> I will forward your email to the correct people at Symantec.
> About using the Opt-Out list as verification, I can only give
> you my word that Symantec would never do this practise. I
> would file claim agaist Symantec if they did (along with my
> resignation).
>
> Again, please before passing judgement, try the Opt-Out list.
> If it does not work, please let me know.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
> Anthony Perry
-- quote --
I am still p*****. I am actively lobbying my company's "powers that
be" to inforce their policy of not doing business with spammers and
have already begun contacting friends, associates and business
contacts on the matter. Almost every one of them agree that, without
an official apology and a promise to stop spamming, that we will all
cease are association with Symantec and their "sister companies".
I've also contacted Bigfoot, but haven't received a comment from them.
-=- Eric
Clifton T. Sharp Jr.
Eric B. Smith wrote:
> [quoting Anthony Perry]
> Symantec's offical policy is that any and all broadcast email to
> the Internet must be filtered against the "Never Email Again"
> list. I was on the team that instituted it.
But there's no statement of limitations on "broadcast email". Symantec's
official policy therefore seems to say it's okay to spam if you use the
remove list.
--
| Cliff Sharp | All relevant people are pertinent.
| WA9PDM | All rude people are impertinent.
| | Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
| | --Solomon W. Golomb
Cameron Spitzer
In article <34E21967...@symantec.com>,
>the Internet Community. All that I can say is that Symantec does have bulk
>emailer and does use them.
> Symantec has chosen, at this
>time, to do mass emailings.
Junk email is theft of service and trespass to chattel.
The appropriate course of action against willful thieves is a community
sanction. We jail common burglars, and we IDP and RBL spam shops.
Why should Symantec be treated any differently than an AGIS or a ConnectUp?
Route-block them, and boycott all their products forever.
And spare me your crap, Anthony Perry, about opt-out lists.
I've heard that garbage before, and it's ALWAYS a LIE. ALWAYS.
Cameron
Rob Eamon
Cameron Spitzer wrote in message <6c1sqa$8pa$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
We need to stop picking on Anthony Perry. His posts have been
informative, and he appears to be *on our side.* Alas, he has thus
far been unable to convince the powers that be that what they
are doing is a *bad thing*.
Peter Seebach
>with the nic, you'll see my name, email, phone and fax numbers. It's a matter
>of public record.
My God.
You're telling me that they're TOO DUMB TO LISTEN TO THE GUY WHO MAKES THE
BOXES RUN?
That's *INSANE*!
>I can not speak if Symantec has or has not been deterred by the out lash for
>the Internet Community.
Well, either this is a deterrent, or they can't count. Do 60,000 user
site licenses matter to Symantec? I mean, I personally know maybe another
ten or fifteen retail purchasers who are quitting...
>I was on the committee against mass emailings. Symantec has chosen, at this
>time, to do mass emailings. This is not to say that Symantec's policy in the
>future may change.
I think you meant "not to say... may not change". I hope so.
>The only solution that I can offer is that Symantec does have a "Never Email
>Again" list. It is Symantec Policy to filter the outage email lists against
>this list and remove the matches.
But that's not what 'subscribe' does; it just takes you off lists you're
already on.
>I hope that this clears up some of the confusion and concerns about Symantec's
>postings. If not, please feel free to email or call me.
Well, the fact is, Symantec chose wrong. You can tell 'em I said so. Why
should they listen to me? BECAUSE I'M ALWAYS RIGHT! You go back and look
over the last couple of years, and I defy you to find a case where I was
on the wrong side of a spam debate. Even if you define "wrong side" to be
"the side that lost".
Spammers are losing. They will always lose. Symantec has probably lost
a few million in long-term revenue over this, maybe more. They've lost
the recommendations of at least a dozen or so consultants *who take the
time to post here*. That's about TWELVE THOUSAND in meatspace. Not to
mention the corporate IS managers, sysadmins, and people with popular
web pages. Sure, I only get a couple hundred people a day through, maybe
more, maybe less... but that's a lot of people to see the phrase "Symantec
spammed" when spam is
THE NUMBER ONE PROBLEM REPORTED BY INTERNET USERS.
Remember that. It's #1. Worse than lag. Worse than broken connections.
Worse than frame-heavy sites. Worse than Microsoft, worse than the Mac,
worse than Unix.
Spam is #1.
More users are more irritated by spam than by any other thing.
Don't marketers know about *polls*?
Dave Levitt
Peter Seebach wrote:
<snippage>
... but that's a lot of people to see the phrase "Symantec
> spammed" when spam is
>
> THE NUMBER ONE PROBLEM REPORTED BY INTERNET USERS.
>
> Remember that. It's #1. Worse than lag. Worse than broken connections.
> Worse than frame-heavy sites. Worse than Microsoft, worse than the Mac,
> worse than Unix.
>
> Spam is #1.
>
> More users are more irritated by spam than by any other thing.
>
> Don't marketers know about *polls*?
>
> -s
> --
> se...@plethora.net -- I am not speaking for my employer. Copyright '97
> All rights reserved. Boycott Spamazon! End Spam. C and Unix wizard -
> send mail for help, or send money for a consultation. Visit my new ISP
> <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam! Plethora . Net
Symantec _did_ consult a poll.
The "Shadow sock-puppet and hardwired results" poll :-|
Peter Seebach
In article <34E4B555...@ibm.net>,
Dave Levitt <dlevitt.no....@ibm.net> wrote:
>Symantec _did_ consult a poll.
>The "Shadow sock-puppet and hardwired results" poll :-|
No doubt.
Me? I just ordered a new utility package for my Mac, to replace Norton,
and I've already switched my PC's to Nuts & Bolts. I looked at Adobe's
email policy (if you give them your address, you agree to accept mail
from them, sez they) and decided not to get PhotoShop.
I'm voting!
Jym Dyer
Anthony Perry <ape...@symantex.com> writes:
> The only solution that I can offer is that Symantec does have
> a "Never Email Again" list. It is Symantec Policy to filter
> the outage email lists against this list and remove the
> matches.
=o= Nobody on the anti-spam side of the fence has ever accepted
"opt out" remove mechanisms as a solution. That's because it is
*not* a solution.
=o= Consider the following, which are all based on actual
experience with such mechanisms:
o "Remove lists" have actually been proven to be a trojan
horse for collecting email addresses and verifying that
the address works. These addresses are then added to
the spam list.
o There has never been a "remove list" implemented with a
legally-binding guarantee that the addresses will never
be used for spamming. Therefore, even if a "remove list"
is actually being used honestly today, one can never be
sure that it won't be added to a spam list in the future
(for example, when the marketing department is up against
a quarterly deadline, or the company's having trouble).
o There has never been a "remove list" implemented so as to
make it exactly clear *who* will use it. Perhaps Symantec
will use it, but perhaps someday they'll use a spam service
that *won't* use it.
o Email addresses permute. By using various hostnames culled
from my domain, or by using the "%" and "!" characters in
interesting ways, you could reach my address here in dozens
of different ways. Should I send Symantec every possible
permutation of my address?
=o= Most important, though, is the fact that Symantec has no
right to force me to incur this expense in the first place, so
they can't possibly have any right to dictate the terms under
which they will cease their theft of my resources.
=o= You have provided NO SOLUTION AT ALL.
<_Jym_>
Anthony Perry
The Opt-Out list is a failsafe to Symantec's Opt-in program. I should have been
more clear on my point here.
I am against the Opt-in program because it too easy to spam the Internet. This
is a perfect example. As a failsafe, we have an Opt-out list as part of the
Opt-in process.
To my knowledge, Symantec only builds list via an Opt-in. We only email
customers who what very specific information.
Cameron Spitzer wrote:
> In article <34E21967...@symantec.com>,
> Anthony Perry <ape...@symantec.com> wrote:
> >I am the acting Internet Architect for Symantec.
> >
> >I can not speak if Symantec has or has not been deterred by the out lash for
> >the Internet Community. All that I can say is that Symantec does have bulk
> >emailer and does use them.
> >I was on the committee against mass emailings.
> > Symantec has chosen, at this
> >time, to do mass emailings.
>
> Junk email is theft of service and trespass to chattel.
> The appropriate course of action against willful thieves is a community
> sanction. We jail common burglars, and we IDP and RBL spam shops.
> Why should Symantec be treated any differently than an AGIS or a ConnectUp?
> Route-block them, and boycott all their products forever.
>
> And spare me your crap, Anthony Perry, about opt-out lists.
> I've heard that garbage before, and it's ALWAYS a LIE. ALWAYS.
>
> Cameron
Anthony Perry
Good point, and I should have been much clearer.
Symantec only build email lists via an Opt-In, so we ask the customers if
they would like to get posting on very specific announcement.
tre...@sirius.com
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>Anthony Perry <ape...@symantec.com> wrote:
>>I am the acting Internet Architect for Symantec. If you do a whois on symantec
>>with the nic, you'll see my name, email, phone and fax numbers. It's a matter
>>of public record.
>
>My God.
>
>You're telling me that they're TOO DUMB TO LISTEN TO THE GUY WHO MAKES THE
>BOXES RUN?
We don't know that. As either Bill or Vernon pointed out, sometimes the NIC
listed contact is just some person. It could be the CIO, who couldn't
explain what an IP address was to save its life but wants the cachet of
being NIC listed contact, or it could be the admin assistant who filled out
the forms, or it could be the desktop support technician who raised its
hand when the call, "Okay, who wants to be NIC listed contact?" rang out at
the Tuesday morning IT meeting.
I'm not saying screw Anthony, but we really don't know who or what he is.
Peter Seebach
In article <34e9c4ed...@news.sirius.com>, <tre...@sirius.com> wrote:
>se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>>Anthony Perry <ape...@symantec.com> wrote:
>>>I am the acting Internet Architect for Symantec. If you do a whois on
>>>symantec with the nic, you'll see my name, email, phone and fax numbers.
>>>It's a matter of public record.
[seebs]
>>You're telling me that they're TOO DUMB TO LISTEN TO THE GUY WHO MAKES THE
>>BOXES RUN?
>We don't know that. As either Bill or Vernon pointed out, sometimes the NIC
>listed contact is just some person.
Yeah, but he sez he's "acting Internet Architect", and I'm inclined to
believe him.
>I'm not saying screw Anthony, but we really don't know who or what he is.
Well, everything he's said that was false or misleading was clearly an
official company policy quote, like the "maybe a friend subscribed you"
thing. This one sounds like that's really who he is, and it makes sense.
Bob O
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:36:26, c...@internetaddress.com (Cameron Spitzer) wrote:
> In article <34E21967...@symantec.com>,
> Anthony Perry <ape...@symantec.com> wrote:
> >I am the acting Internet Architect for Symantec.
> >
> >I can not speak if Symantec has or has not been deterred by the out lash for
> >the Internet Community. All that I can say is that Symantec does have bulk
> >emailer and does use them.
> >I was on the committee against mass emailings.
> > Symantec has chosen, at this
> >time, to do mass emailings.
>
> Junk email is theft of service and trespass to chattel.
> The appropriate course of action against willful thieves is a community
> sanction. We jail common burglars, and we IDP and RBL spam shops.
> Why should Symantec be treated any differently than an AGIS or a ConnectUp?
> Route-block them, and boycott all their products forever.
>
> And spare me your crap, Anthony Perry, about opt-out lists.
> I've heard that garbage before, and it's ALWAYS a LIE. ALWAYS.
>
> Cameron
Opt out lists are not an adequate remedy anyway. What are we supposed to do
individually subscribe to an opt out list for every spammer in the industry?
Bob O - Computing for fun
hap
>I have just received the following, which claims to be from an "Anthony
>Perry" at Symantec. The message does appear to come from Symantec's server,
>but it's interesting that Perry doesn't identify his position with Symantec
>or his authority to make statements on their behalf. So this could be a
>disgruntled Symantec employee seeking revenge on the company as a whole or
>on the real Anthony Perry. If it's real, though, it says that Symantec has
>not been deterred by the outrage and intends to continue its spamming
>policy.
<snip>
>>
>>I would suggest getting your email address on the "Never Email Me Again".
>>It's the only way to ensure we never email you again.
>>
>>http://www.symantec.com/help/subscribe.html
>>
>>Anthony Perry
>>Symantec Corp.
<snip>
Why not visit the Symantec web site and leave them a message on their
Customer Support newsgroup? Search on "spam" and you will find the
complaint thread is rising. The messages in the customer support
newsgroup are public to all their customers. I have wriiten them and
am also waiting for a reply.
... hap
Help fight spam. Join http://www.cauce.org
Leapin Larry
Cameron Spitzer wrote:
>
> And spare me your crap, Anthony Perry, about opt-out lists.
> I've heard that garbage before, and it's ALWAYS a LIE. ALWAYS.
>
What if it is not a lie? If this opt-out list does work then is it
OK to send junk e-mail? I hope you are not suggesting that it is.
There are hundreds if not thousands of companies out there that
could send me unsolicited e-mail. It will not be feasible for me to
sign up on these opt-out lists each time I get a junk e-mail from a
new company.
Opt-out list or not, junk e-mail is unacceptable. Period.
Leapin Larry
Jim Youll
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In response to a SINGLE emailed note to Anthony Perry, he has so far sent 37
identical messages, back to back, into our systems and I have the logs to
prove it.
In case you should hear otherwise, my entire correspondence with Anthony Perry
has consisted of one email message, one reply to his message (the one he sent
me 37 times), and a telephone call to his voice mail in which I demanded that
he call me with an explanation about what the hell he is doing.
My email message to Perry said that every Symantec message received would
result in a 1000:1 reply rate to them. It's true. I manage a couple of hundred
email addresses. If each refused message is courtesy-copied to five addressees
at Symantec (tech admin, three people in public relations and one in corporate
admin) you can easily have a situation like that develop. I do not want their
traffic on my networks. I also recommend and maintain software for my
customers. I will not place Symantec products in my customers' hands after
this.
Rather than finding a REAL way to keep my domains free of their junk, he
responded with 37 copies of the same message and is trying to cause trouble
for me at my service provider.
This is not the guy we should be talking to about this. He's clearly too far
down the food chain since he "lost the war with marketing". His method of
"making a point" is somewhat unusual.
hap <h...@whidbey.TAKE-THIS-OUT.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNOY+fWBzevTT+8RbEQJzRwCg8028CAp5pcroHmkK+mvQvTETw7kAoJu3
GOf/owDiR4ci4YRT3NoMl1n1
=WOYP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Danny Yee
Anthony Perry <ape...@symantec.com> wrote:
>Symantec only build email lists via an Opt-In, so we ask the customers if
>they would like to get posting on very specific announcement.
But I have never subscribed to any Symantec lists, yet I got their email.
Please explain, with details, how my name ended up on their lists.
And if what you state is company policy, then someone has stuff up badly,
and should probably be sacked.
Danny.
Jym Dyer
> I should have been much clearer.
=o= The problem here would appear to be with accuracy,
not clarity.
> Symantec only build[s] email lists via an Opt-In, so we ask
> the customers if they would like to get posting on very
> specific announcement[s].
=o= Then please explain why *I* received the spam junk email
(the one from Symantec itself). Bear in mind that the address
I received the junk email at is not one that I ever give out
and have never given to Symantec.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> To my knowledge, Symantec only builds list via an Opt-in. We
> specific information.
=o= This is incorrect. I and several others have already
pointed out that the email addresses we were spammed at were
not addresses given to Symantec.
=o= Even if by the above you mean we were targeted (e.g. for
posting to a comp.lang.java.* newsgroup), that makes this
theft of our time and resources no less unacceptable.
<_Jym_>
Michael Fleming
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In Chapter news.admin.net-abuse.email on Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:57:44 -0800,
Anthony Perry <ape...@symantec.com> scribed into the Great Tome of
Farnarkling thusly:
> The Opt-Out list is a failsafe to Symantec's Opt-in program. I should
have been
^^^^^^^
> more clear on my point here.
You're making no sense still. The above is spammer talk, yet..
> I am against the Opt-in program because it too easy to spam the Internet.
This
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> is a perfect example. As a failsafe, we have an Opt-out list as part of
the
> Opt-in process.
This makes no sense at all - please re-read what you have written
carefully.
You've been told already OPT OUT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!
> To my knowledge, Symantec only builds list via an Opt-in.
A boatload of people here know otherwise.
>We only email
>customers who what very specific information.
Yeah, right. See above.
1) Throw away the list Symantec got from harvesting the newsgroups and
start again.
2) Promise never *ever* to spam again.
Simple. Just Do It.
Mike.
(Nuts and Bolts are looking good right now, and I already switch AV
programs to AVP from Norton..)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNObc0n66PsYO+OWCEQI1IACcC8+dY4e2r/8MsHgU/ZQpf/SZgjQAoO7i
L5W2bkcJkLeUVtTBt67wY7PP
=d8+n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
________ Michael Fleming - mfle...@powerup.com.au
/_______/\ PGP Keys available from homepage or keyservers
\_______\/ IDs: 0x0EF8E582 (DSS) 0x5C0DA72D (RSA)
| | If it isn't signed, it isn't mine.
| | http://www.powerup.com.au/~mfleming/index.html
|_| Nuke a spammer for fun. You know you want to ;-)
Tom Betz
Quoth mfle...@powerup.com.au (Michael Fleming) in <34e967cc...@news.powerup.com.au>:
|(Nuts and Bolts are looking good right now, and I already switch AV
|programs to AVP from Norton..)
I installed Nuts and Bolts today. Works great!
--
|We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist |
|for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? First, read this page: |
|it's time we tried education. | <http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/mailterms.shtml> |
|<http://www.pobox.com/~tbetz> | YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! |
William Traxman
In article <gmcgath-ya0240800...@news.ma.ultranet.com>, gmc...@ultranet.com
says...
> I have just received the following, which claims to be from an "Anthony
> Perry" at Symantec. The message does appear to come from Symantec's server,
> but it's interesting that Perry doesn't identify his position with Symantec
> or his authority to make statements on their behalf. So this could be a
> disgruntled Symantec employee seeking revenge on the company as a whole or
> on the real Anthony Perry. If it's real, though, it says that Symantec has
> not been deterred by the outrage and intends to continue its spamming
> policy.
> >
> >It's the only way to ensure we never email you again.
> >
> >http://www.symantec.com/help/subscribe.html
> >
> >Anthony Perry
> >Symantec Corp.
> >
>
> --
Get a life and go opt out for Christ's sake, do you realize how much time and bandwidth you've
wasted complaining?
This just proves to you that big business is beginning to realize the marketing potential of
commercial email and how its on the road to being legitimized.
Peter Seebach
>having "a life" means not valuing or caring about anything.
What a wonderful, succinct, statement!
Wayne Strang
Gary McGath wrote:
>
> In article <MPG.f5226b58...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>,
> bil...@hotmail.com (William Traxman) wrote:
>
> >
> >Get a life and go opt out for Christ's sake, do you realize how much time
> and bandwidth you've
> >wasted complaining?
> >This just proves to you that big business is beginning to realize the
> marketing potential of
> >commercial email and how its on the road to being legitimized.
>
> apparently is to live as a vegetable, consuming, reproducing, but never
> thinking or having any strong response to anything. I think it's a way that
> human zombies try to convince themselves that they're the ones who are
> alive when the reverse is true.
>
> As for the notion that the use of other people's resources is somehow being
> "legitimized" by Symantec's activity: Why has their been such an uproar
> from "dead" people about Symantec's theft of services if their activity has
> somehow made it more "legitimate"?
>
Hey Gary. Can you spell t-r-o-l-l-l-e-d? ;)
Moi
tre...@sirius.com
Wayne Strang <wgst...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Gary McGath wrote:
>> It's a sad commentary on our culture that so many people are convinced that
>> having "a life" means not valuing or caring about anything. To be "alive"
>> apparently is to live as a vegetable, consuming, reproducing, but never
>> thinking or having any strong response to anything.
>>
>>
>Hey Gary. Can you spell t-r-o-l-l-l-e-d? ;)
Maybe he was, but his response's a keeper! :)
Michael Fleming
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In Chapter news.admin.net-abuse.email on Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:35:03 -0500,
bil...@hotmail.com (William Traxman) scribed into the Great Tome of
Farnarkling thusly:
> In article <gmcgath-ya0240800...@news.ma.ultranet.com>,
gmc...@ultranet.com
> says...
> > I have just received the following, which claims to be from an "Anthony
> > Perry" at Symantec. The message does appear to come from Symantec's
server,
> > but it's interesting that Perry doesn't identify his position with
Symantec
> > or his authority to make statements on their behalf.
<big snip>
> Get a life and go opt out for Christ's sake, do you realize how much time
and bandwidth you've
> wasted complaining?
> This just proves to you that big business is beginning to realize the
marketing potential of
> commercial email and how its on the road to being legitimized.
<yawn>
Sod off, troll - what part of "theft of resources" don't you understand? We
didn't ask for it, want it, but we're paying for it.
Spamming is *never* good business.
Mike.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNOgken66PsYO+OWCEQIinwCglOhwp+OGNoNebeC0xoZj3wIVg1cAnjdQ
UXvJVUEKscrNGVO3ih5T0m+8
=VuFE
David Bromage
>Farnarkling thusly:
>
>> The Opt-Out list is a failsafe to Symantec's Opt-in program. I should
>have been
> ^^^^^^^
>> more clear on my point here.
>
>You're making no sense still. The above is spammer talk, yet..
>
>> I am against the Opt-in program because it too easy to spam the Internet.
> This
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> is a perfect example. As a failsafe, we have an Opt-out list as part of
>the
>> Opt-in process.
>
>This makes no sense at all - please re-read what you have written
>carefully.
I think he means that he thinks it's too easy to subscribe other people to
mailing lists. I would suggest something like Majordomo which can be set
up to require each subscriber to authenticate subscription.
Cheers
David
NoSpam
In article <gmcgath-ya0240800...@news.ma.ultranet.com>,
Gary McGath <gmc...@ultranet.com> writes
> To be "alive" apparently is to live as a vegetable, consuming,
> reproducing, but never thinking or having any strong response to
> anything.
Sounds not bad to me actually. I especially like the reproducing
part. I personally think I'd go for being a carrot, being a
banana would raise too many eyebrows and being a cucumber would be
way over the top.
Err... I think I'll shut up at this point...
--
NoS...@sengir.demon.co.uk ** Save the net - kill a spammer today **
Grok: http://www.cauce.org http://www.dgl.com/docs/antispam.html **
Find: http://www.blighty.com/spam/spade.html http://spam.abuse.net **
Kill: http://weber.ucsd.edu/~pagre/spam.html http://maps.vix.com **
Wayne Strang
tre...@sirius.com wrote:
>
> Wayne Strang <wgst...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Gary McGath wrote:
> >> It's a sad commentary on our culture that so many people are convinced that
> >> apparently is to live as a vegetable, consuming, reproducing, but never
> >> thinking or having any strong response to anything.
> >>
> >>
>
> Maybe he was, but his response's a keeper! :)
Ain't no doubt about THAT! Highly quotable too.
Moi
Alan Krueger
In article <6camua$r...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> > bil...@hotmail.com (William Traxman) wrote:
> > >Get a life
[...]
> > It's a sad commentary on our culture that so many people are convinced that
> > having "a life" means not valuing or caring about anything.
> Hey Gary. Can you spell t-r-o-l-l-l-e-d? ;)
Regardless of the Troll status of one bil...@hotmail.com, the "get a life"
thing has been used far too often by the Dark Side.
What he said needed saying, and he said it well.
--
W. Alan Krueger | http://bounce.to/alan-krueger
Software Engineer |-------------------------------------------------------
EXi Corporation | Support the anti-spam bill - http://www.cauce.org/
www.exicorp.com | Why don't spammers use Web sites like the rest of us?
Norman L. DeForest
[symantec.customerservice.general snipped as my ISP's news provider does
not carry it and the newsposting software will not allow posting to a
newsgroup it never heard of]
Peter Seebach (se...@plethora.net) wrote:
[snip]
: Me? I just ordered a new utility package for my Mac, to replace Norton,
: and I've already switched my PC's to Nuts & Bolts. I looked at Adobe's
: email policy (if you give them your address, you agree to accept mail
: from them, sez they) and decided not to get PhotoShop.
I have seen several references to "Nuts & Bolts" now. You wouldn't by any
chance have a URL for that, would you?
--
Norman De Forest http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
af...@chebucto.ns.ca [=||=] (A Speech Friendly Site)
.........................................................................
Q. Which is the greater problem in the world today, ignorance or apathy?
A. I don't know and I couldn't care less.
.........................................................................
Spammers, see: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html#Contact
Spammees, see: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Antispam.html
Steve Atkins
Peter Seebach (se...@plethora.net) wrote:
: Me? I just ordered a new utility package for my Mac, to replace Norton,
: and I've already switched my PC's to Nuts & Bolts. I looked at Adobe's
: email policy (if you give them your address, you agree to accept mail
: from them, sez they) and decided not to get PhotoShop.
I wasn't able to find their policy, but I've had four Adobe
products registered for over six months and I haven't
heard a thing on the email address I used to register, from
Adobe or anyone else.
Anyway, filling in the email address on their registration forms is
optional (even for their free downloads).
To me this makes much more sense (if you want notification of
updates and maybe other email from Adobe give us your email
address, otherwise don't) than the Microsoft approach - "Please hit
your browser back button and fill in your email address. We
cannot respect your wish not to receive email unless you give
us your email address.".
A slightly clearer policy statement would be nice, though.
Cheers,
Steve
--
-- Steve Atkins -- st...@blighty.com
WD Baseley
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 08:12:49 GMT, st...@blighty.com (Steve Atkins) wrote:
>[...] the Microsoft approach - "Please hit
>your browser back button and fill in your email address. We
>cannot respect your wish not to receive email unless you give
>us your email address.".
Oops - sorry, M$, here it is:
noj...@this.address.thanks
"Thank you. Click here to proceed with the download".
Cheers,
--
WD Baseley - reporter, Malletshop News Service
The Email Abuse FAQ is at
<http://members.aol.com/emailfaq>
Fight UCE - join CAUCE
<http://www.cauce.org>
Tom Betz
Quoth af...@chebucto.ns.ca (Norman L. DeForest) in <6clvep$9j9$1...@News.Dal.Ca>:
|: and I've already switched my PC's to Nuts & Bolts.
|
|chance have a URL for that, would you?
Download an evaluation copy at <http://www.nai.com/default_hx.asp>.
Richard Johnson
In article <34f0183d...@news.mindspring.com>,
wbas...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 08:12:49 GMT, st...@blighty.com (Steve Atkins) wrote:
>
> >[...] the Microsoft approach ...
> Oops - sorry, M$, here it is:
>
> noj...@this.address.thanks
Actually,
reportedly worked quite well. However, now that someone has registered
using it, you'll need to choose a different address.
Richard
--
To reply via email, make sure you don't enter the whirlpool on river left.
Peter Seebach
In article <6clvep$9j9$1...@News.Dal.Ca>,
Norman L. DeForest <af...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>[symantec.customerservice.general snipped as my ISP's news provider does
>not carry it and the newsposting software will not allow posting to a
>newsgroup it never heard of]
And put back because mine will.
>Peter Seebach (se...@plethora.net) wrote:
>[snip]
>: Me? I just ordered a new utility package for my Mac, to replace Norton,
>: and I've already switched my PC's to Nuts & Bolts. I looked at Adobe's
>: email policy (if you give them your address, you agree to accept mail
>: from them, sez they) and decided not to get PhotoShop.
>I have seen several references to "Nuts & Bolts" now. You wouldn't by any
>chance have a URL for that, would you?
Sure! You can find it somewhere under http://www.helixsoftware.com/.
They are now owned by McAfee - who have not yet spammed me.
The graphics software I use comes from http://www.microfrontier.com/.
No affiliation other than that of a yet-unspammed customer.
-s
--
Copyright '98, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Not speaking for my employer. Questions on C/Unix? Send mail for help.
Matthew Mitchell
In article <34f0183d...@news.mindspring.com>,
wbas...@mindspring.com (WD Baseley) wrote:
>Oops - sorry, M$, here it is:
>
>noj...@this.address.thanks
I got dibs on "f***.you@and.the.horse.you.rode.in.on"
Dr. Matt --two miles from ground zero
(remove first dot to reply)
*51* confirmed kills
Bronzing the scalp of Walt Rines as kill #50
adopt-a-spammer page: http://www.erols.com/mdm1/cyberpromo.html