Spam from Hewlett-Packard
Alan Frisbie
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:
Debbie Thomson
PSG Customer Privacy Manager
Houston, TX CCA4 - 4307
phone: 281.514.4276
fax: 281.927.4525
email: debbie....@hp.com
and her boss,
Dan Swartwood
HP Privacy Officer
Houston, TX
phone: 281.518.9564
fax: 281.927.4525
email: dan.sw...@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
David Froble
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.
Isn't turnabout fair play?
> Perhaps someone with greater persuasive powers than I have could
> educate them. The people I talked with are:
>
> Debbie Thomson
> PSG Customer Privacy Manager
> Houston, TX CCA4 - 4307
> phone: 281.514.4276
> fax: 281.927.4525
> email: debbie....@hp.com
>
> and her boss,
>
> Dan Swartwood
> HP Privacy Officer
> Houston, TX
> phone: 281.518.9564
> fax: 281.927.4525
> email: dan.sw...@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
Alan Frisbie
> 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.
Alan Frisbie
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.
JF Mezei
> 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.
John Smith
Retain a lawyer to sue the bastard and HP for defamation of character...sue
in both CA and TX.
John Smith
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?
John Smith
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12296
US senate passes anti-SPAM bill
Law could mean billions worth of penalties if people break it
By INQUIRER staff: Thursday 23 October 2003, 10:59
A BILL WHICH will stop companies bombarding inboxes with their spam was
passed in the senate yesterday, 97 votes to nil.
Alan Frisbie
> 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?
Keith A. Lewis
>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.
Mark Buda
news:3F985283...@Flying-Disk.com...
> 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...
mark
John Smith
Make a scrupulous concurrent log of everything that occured and have it
witnessed. Contact your lawyer.
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
> Alan Frisbie <Usenet0...@Flying-Disk.com> writes in article <3F985283...@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"?
>
How adult
Regards
Andrew Harrison
Alan Frisbie
> I would suggest contacting his boss and letting them know what is going on.
How does one do that? He claimed to be a "level 3" employee.
Mark, please e-mail me. I tried the obvious de-mungings
of your e-mail address, but Yahoo rejected them.
JF Mezei
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.
John Smith
Ask for the same injunction granted in this case.
=================================
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&ncid=738&e=1&u=/nm/20031
024/tc_nm/tech_spam_lawsuit_dc
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.
Alan Frisbie
> 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.
[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.
JF Mezei
> 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.
Homer Simpson
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" <Usenet0...@Flying-Disk.com> wrote in message
news:3F99DF3...@Flying-Disk.com...