Some time ago, someone signed me up for a bunch of mailing lists. Fortunately, most of them were true confirmed opt-in, so when I didn't reply to the confirmation requests, my address was dropped from the list. Not so with HP, so I have been getting their spam ever since.
To make matters worse it was all in HTML, which is a bit hard to read on a VAX with VMS Mail. Plus, it was all for PC stuff which I am not about to buy from HP, especially now.
To make it even worse, none of the opt-out mechanisms worked, including complaints to ab...@hp.com and ab...@cw.net (their upstream). Ironically, the head of CW's security and abuse department is Bill Hancock, an old-time DECUS personality and true spam-hater.
I just got off the phone with two of Hewlett-Packard's "Privacy" department managers regarding their spam list. Finally, I had been able to get an HP employee to forward my complaint to their internal help address, which forwarded it several times, eventually reaching their Privacy Department.
They eventually promised to listwash all my domains after first only agreeing to listwash the specific addresses I first complained about.
However, my big complaint was that they are entirely opt-out and have no intention of using confirmed opt-in (they called it "double opt-in", the mark of a true spammer). They say that no large company does, so it would put them at a competitive disadvantage.
I explained to them how their signup web site was being used as an abuse tool, but they were unswayed.
I also noted that California law requires "ADV:" as the first four characters of the subject line, but they said that they don't have to. Interesting, since both HP and I are in California.
They are both familiar with MAPS, but say they will not follow MAPS's "Basic Mailing List Management Guidelines for Preventing Abuse", and have no intention of doing so.
Perhaps someone with greater persuasive powers than I have could educate them. The people I talked with are:
Dan Swartwood HP Privacy Officer Houston, TX phone: 281.518.9564 fax: 281.927.4525 email: dan.swartw...@hp.com
Dan appears to be a pretty bright guy and knows exactly what he is doing, so this is not casual ignorance. He says that they opt-out over 50 people a day, so he is not unaware of the problem. I hope that someone can convince them to change away from the dark side.
Alan Frisbie wrote: > Some time ago, someone signed me up for a bunch of mailing > lists. Fortunately, most of them were true confirmed opt-in, > so when I didn't reply to the confirmation requests, my > address was dropped from the list. Not so with HP, so I have > been getting their spam ever since.
> To make matters worse it was all in HTML, which is a bit hard > to read on a VAX with VMS Mail. Plus, it was all for PC > stuff which I am not about to buy from HP, especially now.
> To make it even worse, none of the opt-out mechanisms worked, > including complaints to ab...@hp.com and ab...@cw.net (their > upstream). Ironically, the head of CW's security and abuse > department is Bill Hancock, an old-time DECUS personality and > true spam-hater.
> I just got off the phone with two of Hewlett-Packard's "Privacy" > department managers regarding their spam list. Finally, I had > been able to get an HP employee to forward my complaint to their > internal help address, which forwarded it several times, eventually > reaching their Privacy Department.
> They eventually promised to listwash all my domains after first > only agreeing to listwash the specific addresses I first complained > about.
> However, my big complaint was that they are entirely opt-out and > have no intention of using confirmed opt-in (they called it > "double opt-in", the mark of a true spammer). They say that no > large company does, so it would put them at a competitive > disadvantage.
> I explained to them how their signup web site was being used as > an abuse tool, but they were unswayed.
> I also noted that California law requires "ADV:" as the first > four characters of the subject line, but they said that they > don't have to. Interesting, since both HP and I are in > California.
Possibly the California Attorney General would be a bit interested in such scofflaws? It would at least get a bit more of their attention.
> They are both familiar with MAPS, but say they will not follow > MAPS's "Basic Mailing List Management Guidelines for Preventing > Abuse", and have no intention of doing so.
> Dan Swartwood > HP Privacy Officer > Houston, TX > phone: 281.518.9564 > fax: 281.927.4525 > email: dan.swartw...@hp.com
> Dan appears to be a pretty bright guy and knows exactly what he > is doing, so this is not casual ignorance. He says that they > opt-out over 50 people a day, so he is not unaware of the problem. > I hope that someone can convince them to change away from the > dark side.
> Alan Remove "REMOVE" to reply
50 is suppost to be some real big number?
If they have removed you from all their lists, then you're Ok and have no reason to contact them again. However, if they don't, then I wonder what it would be considered if you sent them repeated messages to please remove you from their lists. Say, 50K or so messages each night?
I really hate spammers, but rather than "get back", or "get even", I prefer "get ahead".
Dave
-- David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596 DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: da...@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road Vanderbilt, PA 15486
David Froble wrote: > Alan Frisbie wrote: >> I also noted that California law requires "ADV:" as the first >> four characters of the subject line, but they said that they >> don't have to. Interesting, since both HP and I are in >> California. > Possibly the California Attorney General would be a bit interested in > such scofflaws? It would at least get a bit more of their attention.
Indeed, I will be filing a complaint with the AG's office. If Dan Swartwood had assured me that HP would change their ways, I would not bother. But it looks like HP needs a whack with a clue stick.
> [50 opt-outs per day] > 50 is suppost to be some real big number?
Yes, since it should be zero, and would be if they used confirmed opt-in.
> If they have removed you from all their lists, then you're Ok and have > no reason to contact them again. However, if they don't, then I wonder > what it would be considered if you sent them repeated messages to please > remove you from their lists. Say, 50K or so messages each night?
No, I will not fight abuse in that manner. Now, raising a stink at the stockholders meeting is another matter.
> I really hate spammers, but rather than "get back", or "get even", I > prefer "get ahead".
Indeed. My goal is to return e-mail to its formerly-useful state for all users. Some people volunteer their time to clean up parks, beaches, and the like. I'm working to clean up the Internet. If it means exposing a company's dirty practices to the light of day, so be it.
Sadly, this problem has taken a turn for the worse.
Apparently, Mr. Swartwood decided to get revenge on me. Yesterday afternoon, he called my client, Nelson Nameplate Company (where I had been getting the spams), and left a voice-mail message for the president of the company.
He falsely claimed that I had sent bogus and harassing e-mails to him. He did not offer any proof or examples.
I have never sent any e-mail of any kind to him, nor have I ever asked anyone to do so. I think it would be wrong, just as I think it is wrong for him to make such claims to my client.
I am deeply saddened that a Hewlett-Packard employee would do such a thing, especially someone in a position of responsibility. The company is greatly diminished in my eyes.
Alan Frisbie wrote: > Apparently, Mr. Swartwood decided to get revenge on me. > Yesterday afternoon, he called my client, Nelson Nameplate > Company (where I had been getting the spams), and left a > voice-mail message for the president of the company.
That is despicable. This would warrant a lawyers letter on behalf of your president to Carly requiring HP to respond in a letter detailing the actions CArly will have taken to not only repair this particulat problem, but ensure that HP will abide by mass mailing etiquette.
Alan Frisbie wrote: > Sadly, this problem has taken a turn for the worse.
> Apparently, Mr. Swartwood decided to get revenge on me. > Yesterday afternoon, he called my client, Nelson Nameplate > Company (where I had been getting the spams), and left a > voice-mail message for the president of the company.
> He falsely claimed that I had sent bogus and harassing e-mails > to him. He did not offer any proof or examples.
> I have never sent any e-mail of any kind to him, nor have I > ever asked anyone to do so. I think it would be wrong, just > as I think it is wrong for him to make such claims to my client.
> I am deeply saddened that a Hewlett-Packard employee would do > such a thing, especially someone in a position of responsibility. > The company is greatly diminished in my eyes.
Retain a lawyer to sue the bastard and HP for defamation of character...sue in both CA and TX.
John Smith wrote: > Alan Frisbie wrote: >> Sadly, this problem has taken a turn for the worse.
>> Apparently, Mr. Swartwood decided to get revenge on me. >> Yesterday afternoon, he called my client, Nelson Nameplate >> Company (where I had been getting the spams), and left a >> voice-mail message for the president of the company.
>> He falsely claimed that I had sent bogus and harassing e-mails >> to him. He did not offer any proof or examples.
>> I have never sent any e-mail of any kind to him, nor have I >> ever asked anyone to do so. I think it would be wrong, just >> as I think it is wrong for him to make such claims to my client.
>> I am deeply saddened that a Hewlett-Packard employee would do >> such a thing, especially someone in a position of responsibility. >> The company is greatly diminished in my eyes.
> Retain a lawyer to sue the bastard and HP for defamation of > character...sue in both CA and TX.
RETRACTION My apologies to Mr. Swartwood. I'm sure he's not a bastard and I mis-spoke in calling him that.
I'm sure he was only following HP policies in the course of his duties as an HP employee. What other possible reason or motive could he have to call your client?
Alan Frisbie wrote: > Some time ago, someone signed me up for a bunch of mailing > lists. Fortunately, most of them were true confirmed opt-in, > so when I didn't reply to the confirmation requests, my > address was dropped from the list. Not so with HP, so I have > been getting their spam ever since.
> To make matters worse it was all in HTML, which is a bit hard > to read on a VAX with VMS Mail. Plus, it was all for PC > stuff which I am not about to buy from HP, especially now.
> To make it even worse, none of the opt-out mechanisms worked, > including complaints to ab...@hp.com and ab...@cw.net (their > upstream). Ironically, the head of CW's security and abuse > department is Bill Hancock, an old-time DECUS personality and > true spam-hater.
> I just got off the phone with two of Hewlett-Packard's "Privacy" > department managers regarding their spam list. Finally, I had > been able to get an HP employee to forward my complaint to their > internal help address, which forwarded it several times, eventually > reaching their Privacy Department.
> They eventually promised to listwash all my domains after first > only agreeing to listwash the specific addresses I first complained > about.
> However, my big complaint was that they are entirely opt-out and > have no intention of using confirmed opt-in (they called it > "double opt-in", the mark of a true spammer). They say that no > large company does, so it would put them at a competitive > disadvantage.
> I explained to them how their signup web site was being used as > an abuse tool, but they were unswayed.
> I also noted that California law requires "ADV:" as the first > four characters of the subject line, but they said that they > don't have to. Interesting, since both HP and I are in > California.
> They are both familiar with MAPS, but say they will not follow > MAPS's "Basic Mailing List Management Guidelines for Preventing > Abuse", and have no intention of doing so.
> Perhaps someone with greater persuasive powers than I have could > educate them. The people I talked with are:
> Dan Swartwood > HP Privacy Officer > Houston, TX > phone: 281.518.9564 > fax: 281.927.4525 > email: dan.swartw...@hp.com
> Dan appears to be a pretty bright guy and knows exactly what he > is doing, so this is not casual ignorance. He says that they > opt-out over 50 people a day, so he is not unaware of the problem. > I hope that someone can convince them to change away from the > dark side.
Alan Frisbie wrote: > Sadly, this problem has taken a turn for the worse.
> Apparently, Mr. Swartwood decided to get revenge on me. > Yesterday afternoon, he called my client, Nelson Nameplate > Company (where I had been getting the spams), and left a > voice-mail message for the president of the company.
> He falsely claimed that I had sent bogus and harassing e-mails > to him. He did not offer any proof or examples.
> I have never sent any e-mail of any kind to him, nor have I > ever asked anyone to do so. I think it would be wrong, just > as I think it is wrong for him to make such claims to my client.
I can't believe this guy. I just got a call from my client. He said that Dan Swartwood called him again today, still trying to drag them into this. Doesn't Hewlett-Packard have some rules for employees about ethical and legal behavior?
Alan Frisbie <Usenet01REM...@Flying-Disk.com> writes in article <3F985283.5050...@Flying-Disk.com> dated Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:13:23 -0700:
>He said that Dan Swartwood called him again today, still trying >to drag them into this.
And you posted here again, still trying to drag comp.os.vms (HP's clients) into it. Maybe he's playing "tit for tat"?
Suggestions:
* Spamcop.net maintains a RBL, report it there.
* Use a filter, either on your mail client or on your SMTP server.
To try to get back on-topic here, I'll mention that TCPIP services for VMS has a somewhat functional IMAP server (not as nice as Multinet's), and you can use Mozilla for VMS as a client. Mozilla supports filters.
--Keith Lewis klewis {at} mitre.org The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
> I can't believe this guy. I just got a call from my client. > He said that Dan Swartwood called him again today, still trying > to drag them into this. Doesn't Hewlett-Packard have some > rules for employees about ethical and legal behavior?
I would suggest contacting his boss and letting them know what is going on. Also point out that you are sharing your experiences with comp.os.vms and how poorly treated you have been to date. If that does not work, move it up to the next in line.
Sooner or later Mr. Smartwood will find himself in deep water. His actions go against employee conduct, a course he is required to take and obviously has not taken...
I would expect that he would call and apologize for his unprofessional behavior before he gets into trouble...
Alan Frisbie wrote: > Alan Frisbie wrote: >> Sadly, this problem has taken a turn for the worse.
>> Apparently, Mr. Swartwood decided to get revenge on me. >> Yesterday afternoon, he called my client, Nelson Nameplate >> Company (where I had been getting the spams), and left a >> voice-mail message for the president of the company.
>> He falsely claimed that I had sent bogus and harassing e-mails >> to him. He did not offer any proof or examples.
>> I have never sent any e-mail of any kind to him, nor have I >> ever asked anyone to do so. I think it would be wrong, just >> as I think it is wrong for him to make such claims to my client.
> I can't believe this guy. I just got a call from my client. > He said that Dan Swartwood called him again today, still trying > to drag them into this. Doesn't Hewlett-Packard have some > rules for employees about ethical and legal behavior?
Make a scrupulous concurrent log of everything that occured and have it witnessed. Contact your lawyer.
Keith A. Lewis wrote: > Alan Frisbie <Usenet01REM...@Flying-Disk.com> writes in article <3F985283.5050...@Flying-Disk.com> dated Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:13:23 -0700:
>>He said that Dan Swartwood called him again today, still trying >>to drag them into this.
> And you posted here again, still trying to drag comp.os.vms (HP's clients) > into it. Maybe he's playing "tit for tat"?
If the HP employee went over your head directly to your president, then the response should come from your president and also go over the HP employee's head and talk from president to president.
Your president should state 2 things to the HP president: 1- ask HP to ensure HP employees don't bother him directly with petty stuff.
2- specify that the president trusts his employees/consultants , perhaps noting that you are well known in the VMS community with tons of experience and well respected and that if you state that you have been abused by an HP employee not respecting your request to be taken out of a mass mailing list, then the president fully supports you and not HP and that if HP does not immediatly correct the problem and if the HP president does not immediatly apologize directly to the employee (you), that he (the president of your copmpany) will remember this event when the time comes to evaluate upcoming IT purchase decisions.
California Wins Its First Anti-Spam Judgment October 24, 2003
By Barbara Grady
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California won its first anti-spam judgment on Friday when a court fined a marketing firm $2 million for sending out millions of unsolicited e-mails telling people how to spam, the state's attorney general said.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer brought the case against PW Marketing of Los Angeles County and its owners Paul Willis and Claudia Griffin in 2002 under a 1998 state anti-spam law. The law was strengthened last month to make it easier to sue spammers.
Lockyer's spokesman Tom Dressler said while this case was decided under the original statute, *the attorney general's office expects in the future it will be easier to try cases under the updated, tougher law.*
PW Marketing and Willis and Griffin were charged with sending out millions of e-mails advertising "how to" guides on spamming and long lists of e-mail addresses.
The judgment, which Lockyer said will be the model for future spam injunctions, forbids PW Marketing from sending unsolicited commercial e-mail, accessing computers that belong to other people without their permission and disguising its identity by sending e-mails that appear to originate from a different address.
*The injunction also forbids Willis and Griffin for 10 years from owning or managing any business that advertises over the Internet.* *(HP - take note)*
The tougher measures in the new statute include allowing individuals to sue spammers and collect damages of up to $1,000 per e-mail. Another provision forbids sending unsolicited e-mail advertisements unless recipients give prior permission to receive such e-mails.
The old law made it illegal to send to recipients who had specified they did not want to receive e-mail advertising. It also required senders to provide a phone number or valid e-mail address for opting out on each e-mail -- something the company did not do, the attorney general's office said.
>> Sadly, this problem has taken a turn for the worse.
>> Apparently, Mr. Swartwood decided to get revenge on me. >> Yesterday afternoon, he called my client, Nelson Nameplate >> Company (where I had been getting the spams), and left a >> voice-mail message for the president of the company.
>> He falsely claimed that I had sent bogus and harassing e-mails >> to him. He did not offer any proof or examples.
[NOTE: After a request from Nelson, he has yet to do so.]
>> I have never sent any e-mail of any kind to him, nor have I >> ever asked anyone to do so. I think it would be wrong, just >> as I think it is wrong for him to make such claims to my client.
>> I am deeply saddened that a Hewlett-Packard employee would do >> such a thing, especially someone in a position of responsibility. >> The company is greatly diminished in my eyes. > Retain a lawyer to sue the bastard and HP for defamation of character...
> sue in both CA and TX.
I would prefer to avoid any legal action, however warranted it might be. My goal is to convince HP to change their practices so that they cannot be used as a tool to harass others.
I would be perfectly satisfied by a letter from Dan Swartwood's manager, apologizing for the behavior of his employee, and an agreement to use only confirmed (closed-loop) opt-in for all their mailing lists. Needless to say, this would require that all existing mailing lists be confirmed before using them again.
He can always contact me at:
Alan E. Frisbie Flying Disk Systems, Inc. 4759 Round Top Drive Los Angeles, CA 90065
I hope that some concerned HP employee will make sure this gets to the right person.
Alan Frisbie wrote: > I would be perfectly satisfied by a letter from Dan Swartwood's > manager, apologizing for the behavior of his employee,
If the culprit went over your head directly to your president, wasting your president's time, then it is your president that needs to complain to HP's president. HP's president will pass it down to whatever level she thinks is applicable.
You can draft the letter and have your president sign it.
This reminds me of the time I registered my nephew's new Presario desktop using his name and my email address, since he did not yet have email. That was about 4 years ago. To this day, about 5% of the spam I receive comes with his name in the subject line. Apparently, Compaq sold the registration info to several spammers. I'm not sure if just making HP restrict advertisements to opt-in-only lists is going to stop the flood. They should also cease selling their customer registration lists to other spammers!
"Alan Frisbie" <Usenet01REM...@Flying-Disk.com> wrote in message
> >> Sadly, this problem has taken a turn for the worse.
> >> Apparently, Mr. Swartwood decided to get revenge on me. > >> Yesterday afternoon, he called my client, Nelson Nameplate > >> Company (where I had been getting the spams), and left a > >> voice-mail message for the president of the company.
> >> He falsely claimed that I had sent bogus and harassing e-mails > >> to him. He did not offer any proof or examples.
> [NOTE: After a request from Nelson, he has yet to do so.]
> >> I have never sent any e-mail of any kind to him, nor have I > >> ever asked anyone to do so. I think it would be wrong, just > >> as I think it is wrong for him to make such claims to my client.
> >> I am deeply saddened that a Hewlett-Packard employee would do > >> such a thing, especially someone in a position of responsibility. > >> The company is greatly diminished in my eyes.
> > Retain a lawyer to sue the bastard and HP for defamation of character... > > sue in both CA and TX.
> I would prefer to avoid any legal action, however warranted it > might be. My goal is to convince HP to change their practices > so that they cannot be used as a tool to harass others.
> I would be perfectly satisfied by a letter from Dan Swartwood's > manager, apologizing for the behavior of his employee, and an > agreement to use only confirmed (closed-loop) opt-in for all > their mailing lists. Needless to say, this would require that > all existing mailing lists be confirmed before using them again.
> He can always contact me at:
> Alan E. Frisbie > Flying Disk Systems, Inc. > 4759 Round Top Drive > Los Angeles, CA 90065
> I hope that some concerned HP employee will make sure this gets > to the right person.
