David O. Schwartz, President of 21st Century Marketing (the company that tries to guess e-mail addresses in order to send spam[1]) writes in a letter that all the outrage at what his company does is due to a reporter's "misstatement of facts".
It's enough already. It's amazing how one reporter's misstatement of the facts regarding our epend service can awaken so many uninformed anti-spam zealots. Apparently these people have nothing else to do.
Spoken like a true spammer.
[1] Major clue: if it weren't spam, the would-be recipients would have opted-in or given consent to the sender to be contacted, they would have *given* the sender their e-mail address *without* the need for Mr. Schartz' company to do *any* kind of guessing games.
Doug Lim wrote: >David O. Schwartz, President of 21st Century Marketing >(the company that tries to guess e-mail addresses in order >to send spam[1]) writes in a letter that all the outrage >at what his company does is due to a reporter's "misstatement >of facts".
And you'll note his letter doesn't even try to tell us what HE thinks the correct facts are.
-- Jay Levitt | This is not the start of World War III Chief Architect, Mail | No political ploys America Online, Inc. | I think both your constitutions are j...@aol.com | terrific, so now you know - be good boys
> >David O. Schwartz, President of 21st Century Marketing > >(the company that tries to guess e-mail addresses in order > >to send spam[1]) writes in a letter that all the outrage > >at what his company does is due to a reporter's "misstatement > >of facts".
> And you'll note his letter doesn't even try to tell us what HE thinks the > correct facts are.
You noticed that too, huh?
----------------------------------------------- Dave Lugo | dl...@stk.com Systems/Network Admin. | http://www.stk.com Analytical Graphics Inc. | (610)578-1000 -----------------------------------------------
>David O. Schwartz, President of 21st Century Marketing >(the company that tries to guess e-mail addresses in order >to send spam[1]) writes in a letter that all the outrage >at what his company does is due to a reporter's "misstatement >of facts".
A typical direct marketer's statement, plenty of emotionalism and zero information.
This is a rebuttal? How pathetic.
A toddler's wail of "I didn't do it! They're picking on me!" is just as informative and more convincing than this letter.
It seems to me like his lawyers told him to say something to counteract the negative publicity without telling any easily disprovable lies. I guess this is the best they could do.
There's nothing in the letter to indicate why it would be necessary to guess a customer's email address if the customer wanted it known to 21st Century Marketing's clients.
In view of their current attitude, I suspect their next product might be credit card number guessing software. After all, if it becomes accepted practice to distribute a business' advertising costs among a number of guessed email addresses and their ISPs without permission, why not do the same for other business expenses with credit card numbers?
In article <384c13fe.832399...@news.erols.com>, mun...@bad.example.com says...
>In view of their current attitude, I suspect their next product might >be credit card number guessing software. After all, if it becomes >accepted practice to distribute a business' advertising costs among a >number of guessed email addresses and their ISPs without permission, >why not do the same for other business expenses with credit card >numbers?
>joemooreaterolsdotcom
Yeah, and it's then the recipients duty to pay return costs if they don't want it. Yeah, that's it.
>>In view of their current attitude, I suspect their next product might >>be credit card number guessing software. After all, if it becomes >>accepted practice to distribute a business' advertising costs among a >>number of guessed email addresses and their ISPs without permission, >>why not do the same for other business expenses with credit card >>numbers?
>>joemooreaterolsdotcom
>Yeah, and it's then the recipients duty to pay return costs if they don't want >it. Yeah, that's it.
That's the ticket!
This direct marketing stuff is fun.
We'll start out sending unrequested books to them and charging their credit cards. That's gotta be free speech. After all who's gonna want the government telling them what books somebody can send them. And if they want to opt-out, they can send their credit card numbers to our Charge Preference Service to have their number temporarily removed from our lists. We'll let business owners opt-out all their business credit cards, but we won't let Charge Service Providers like Visa and Master Card opt-out all their cards because that would be depriving their customers of the choice to receive our unrequested books.
Joe Moore <mun...@bad.example.com> wrote: >SPAMGUARDEDe...@SPAMGUARDED.indiana.edu (Ronald D. Edge) wrote:
>We'll start out sending unrequested books to them and charging their >credit cards. That's gotta be free speech. After all who's gonna want >the government telling them what books somebody can send them. And if >they want to opt-out, they can send their credit card numbers to our >Charge Preference Service to have their number temporarily removed >from our lists. We'll let business owners opt-out all their business >credit cards, but we won't let Charge Service Providers like Visa and >Master Card opt-out all their cards because that would be depriving >their customers of the choice to receive our unrequested books.
Except, at least in the U.S., the scammers had already beaten you to this idea by at least several decades (probably more). In response to that scheme, for as long as I can remember, postal regulations (even backed by federal legislation - Title 39, United States Code, Section 3009 - The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970) have stated that if merchandise is sent unsolicited, said merchandise can be considered by the recipient to be a free gift for which the recipient has absloutely no obligations whatsoever to the sender.
I was searching through the USPS site recently looking for the URL explaining that the "four reports" type schemes aren't instantly legal (contrary to what the chain letter for these schemes claim) just because the participants are distributing "merchandise" in the form of "reports" of dubious value. I found lots of interesting and useful information linked off
> Except, at least in the U.S., the scammers had already beaten you to > this idea by at least several decades (probably more). In response to > that scheme, for as long as I can remember, postal regulations (even > backed by federal legislation - Title 39, United States Code, Section > 3009 - The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970) have stated that if > merchandise is sent unsolicited, said merchandise can be considered by > the recipient to be a free gift for which the recipient has absloutely > no obligations whatsoever to the sender.
IIRC, you'll find the same thing in the Uniform Commercial Code that virtually every state follows.
Doug Lim <d...@enteract.com> wrote: >In article <384c663d.853461...@news.erols.com>, >Joe Moore <mun...@bad.example.com> wrote: >>SPAMGUARDEDe...@SPAMGUARDED.indiana.edu (Ronald D. Edge) wrote:
>>We'll start out sending unrequested books to them and charging their >>credit cards.
- snip -
>Except, at least in the U.S., the scammers had already beaten you to >this idea by at least several decades (probably more). In response to >that scheme, for as long as I can remember, postal regulations (even >backed by federal legislation - Title 39, United States Code, Section >3009 - The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970) have stated that if >merchandise is sent unsolicited, said merchandise can be considered by >the recipient to be a free gift for which the recipient has absloutely >no obligations whatsoever to the sender.
OK, so we send them via UPS until we can get this censurious law overturned on free speech grounds. Who would hold that books aren't speech. Besides which, we'll already have our money from the credit card company no matter what the recipient decides.
Alright, so I'm only kidding. I, unlike the DMA and 21st Century MUrketing, realize that mutual consent is a requirement for economic transactions in a free society regardless of attempts to characterize those transactions as speech. I also have a conscience.
Doug Lim <d...@enteract.com> wrote: >In article <384c663d.853461...@news.erols.com>, >Joe Moore <mun...@bad.example.com> wrote: >>SPAMGUARDEDe...@SPAMGUARDED.indiana.edu (Ronald D. Edge) wrote:
>>We'll start out sending unrequested books to them and charging their >>credit cards.
- snip -
>Except, at least in the U.S., the scammers had already beaten you to >this idea by at least several decades (probably more). In response to >that scheme, for as long as I can remember, postal regulations (even >backed by federal legislation - Title 39, United States Code, Section >3009 - The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970) have stated that if >merchandise is sent unsolicited, said merchandise can be considered by >the recipient to be a free gift for which the recipient has absloutely >no obligations whatsoever to the sender.
OK, so we send them via UPS until we can get this censurious law overturned on free speech grounds. Who would hold that books aren't speech. Besides which, we'll already have our money from the credit card company no matter what the recipient decides.
Alright, so I'm only kidding. I, unlike the DMA and 21st Century MUrketing, realize that mutual consent is a requirement for economic transactions in a free society regardless of attempts to characterize those transactions as speech. I also have a conscience.
> Except, at least in the U.S., the scammers had already beaten you to > this idea by at least several decades (probably more). In response to > that scheme, for as long as I can remember, postal regulations (even > backed by federal legislation - Title 39, United States Code, Section > 3009 - The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970) have stated that if > merchandise is sent unsolicited, said merchandise can be considered by > the recipient to be a free gift for which the recipient has absloutely > no obligations whatsoever to the sender.
IIRC, you'll find the same thing in the Uniform Commercial Code that virtually every state follows.
Joe Moore wrote: > There's nothing in the letter to indicate why it would be necessary > to guess a customer's email address if the customer wanted it known > to 21st Century Marketing's clients.
> In view of their current attitude, I suspect their next product might > be credit card number guessing software.
Where was the freakin' C&C????
That was some primo Bols Genever, friend!
Your penance will be to write a press announcement for the CC number guessing service, as much as possible like 21CM's. Let's see if we can't get it printed...
-- | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | | There isn't really a tooth fairy, but whois toothfairy.com works. | +----------- D. C. & M. V. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ ========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======: Path: ...!news-feed.fnsi.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!205.231. 82.12!newsrouter.icnc.com!portc04.blue.aol.com!news.icq.com!alpha.sky.net!m ercury.cts.com!news.aloha.net!burns.wenet.net!news.wenet.net!addon From: "D. C. & M. V. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> Newsgroups: alt.lifestyle.icq,news.admin.net-abuse.email Subject: cmsg cancel <384DE87A.68572...@lumbercartel.com> Control: cancel <384DE87A.68572...@lumbercartel.com> Date: 8 Dec 1999 12:30:14 GMT Organization: ICQ Lines: 4 Approved: BeamLox...@hotmail.com (BeamLoxy's) Message-ID: <803EC35E.00700ECF@lumbercartel.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.197.208.115 X-Trace: news.icq.com 944656195 15551 203.197.208.115 (8 Dec 1999 12:29:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@icq.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Dec 1999 12:29:55 GMT X-Cancelled-By: BeamLox...@hotmail.com (BeamLoxy's) X-Authenticated-Sender: BeamLox...@hotmail.com (BeamLoxy's)
"D. C. & M. V. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>Joe Moore wrote:
>> In view of their current attitude, I suspect their next product might >> be credit card number guessing software.
>Where was the freakin' C&C????
I haven't figured out how to do that without breaking up the thread.
>That was some primo Bols Genever, friend!
Uh, (waits for search engine to return from "Bols Genever" search) Thanks!
>Your penance will be to write a press announcement for the CC number >guessing service, as much as possible like 21CM's. Let's see if we >can't get it printed...
THIRD MILENIUM MURKETING ANNOUNCES SALES IMPROVEMENT SOFTWARE
Hmmmmmmm.....
>-- >| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable | >| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. | >| There isn't really a tooth fairy, but whois toothfairy.com works. | >+----------- D. C. & M. V. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
>We'll start out sending unrequested books to them and charging their >credit cards. That's gotta be free speech. After all who's gonna want >the government telling them what books somebody can send them. And if >they want to opt-out, they can send their credit card numbers to our >Charge Preference Service to have their number temporarily removed >from our lists. We'll let business owners opt-out all their business >credit cards, but we won't let Charge Service Providers like Visa and >Master Card opt-out all their cards because that would be depriving >their customers of the choice to receive our unrequested books.
>We'll make zillions!
And if we include instructions on how to do what we did, then THEY will make zillions. Then it won't even be spam, because it will be of benefit to the recipient - a financial reward to thank them for having credit card numbers!
|
