Microsoft Study???
Toni
=start=============
From: [surveysitemail(dot)com email address]
Microsoft is conducting a study about a new offering and is interested in your opinion.
If you participate in this study, you may enter a contest to win one of five (5) $100
Amazon gift ceritificates.
Participate Now!
To participate, click the following URL: [securestudies(dot)com URL]
(blah blah blah)
Stop Sending Me This Type of E-mail!
If you prefer not to receive e-mail invitations to participate in comScore market
research on behalf of Microsoft, please please use this form:
[mailingsvcs(dot)com URL]
=end=============
The above is a cut/paste.
1. Notice that "certificates" is spelled wrong.
2. Notice duplicate words near the end in "please please use this form".
There is a MS link in the email, but it's not clear from that link whether this stupid
email is legit or not.
My antispam program is MailWasher Pro, and it's pretty damn near 100% effectve at
spotting spam. It firmly stamped this email as spam.
But is this legit? It seems almost criminally stupid to assume that Microsoft couldn't
conduct their own survey or manage their own mailing list, right? Especially since my
email preferences with Microsoft specifically state that I DO NOT want MS to share my
email address with 3rd parties (and yes, I am meticulous about these things).
If this IS from MS, they've now shared my contact information with three companies that
can't spell (surveysitemail, securestudies, and mailingsvcs DOTcom)
Can anyone verify this as legit, or disgustingly spammy? Has Microsoft cheerfully
violated my privacy?
Thanks to anyone that can help!!!
DL
"Toni" <Ton...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e9ehipnq...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
C
> I received an email today, allegedly from Microsoft, for a study. It begins:
Spam. Delete it. Forget it. Move on.
--
C
Lem
Of course it's spam.
A good, but not 100% perfect, place to check out websites:
http://www.siteadvisor.com/ (run by McAfee)
And see in the comments about the securestudies site concerning comScore
As for "sharing your contact information," you've now done that with the
entire Internet by posting here using your unmunged email address.
--
Lem
Apollo 11 - 40 years ago:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/40th/index.html
Toni
:
> As for "sharing your contact information," you've now done that with the entire
> Internet by posting here using your unmunged email address.
No, I haven't :)
MowGreen
will *not* share your email address with 3rd parties if you choose that
option.
However, they will use 3rd parties for surveys but notify you in advance
and state that said 3rd parties are partners, not 3rd parties. Those
'partners' will *never* contact you without MS being involved and
*never* share your information with another party.
And, if MS does run a survey, they will offer some form of compensation
in return, not a limited amount of prizes.
MowGreen
================
* -343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
================
banthecheck.com
"Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
Saucy
emailbox these days is from legitimate companies unless you already were
expecting it.
"Toni" <Ton...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e9ehipnq...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Greg Russell
Toni <Ton...@yahoo.com> typed:
> I received an email today, allegedly from Microsoft, for a study. It
> begins:
>
> =start=============
> From: [surveysitemail(dot)com email address]
Registrant:
Comscore, Inc
11950 Democracy Dr.
Suite 600
Reston, VA 20190
US
Domain Name: SURVEYSITEMAIL.COM
> Participate Now!
An exclamation mark urging action is a sure sign of spam.
> To participate, click the following URL: [securestudies(dot)com URL]
Registrant:
TMRG, INC.
11950 Democracy Dr.
Suite 600
Reston, VA 20190
US
Domain Name: SECURESTUDIES.COM
> this form: [mailingsvcs(dot)com URL]
Registrant:
TMRG, INC.
11950 Democracy Dr.
Suite 600
Reston, VA 20190
US
Domain Name: MAILINGSVCS.COM
> But is this legit?
3 different domains, 5th-grade grammar and even lesser spelling ... sounds
like they've almost got you on the hook, and now you're asking anyone from a
group of strangers here whether it's "legit"? If someone said "OK" would you
actually submit the form?
> It seems almost criminally stupid to assume that
> Microsoft couldn't conduct their own survey or manage their own
> mailing list, right?
Riiiiiiiight ... maybe there's hope for you after all.
Greg Russell
Toni <Ton...@yahoo.com> typed:
You used a valid domain "yahoo.com", so any local address associated with
that domain, even if you just "made it up", is almost ceratin to generate
spam for someone totally unaware that you posted their email address in
Usenet.
Use an invalid RHS (right-hand-side) domain such as example if your email
client demands an email address.
Greg Russell
...
> Use an invalid RHS (right-hand-side) domain such as example if your
> email client demands an email address.
That should be "such as example.com".
C
> It's spam and *not* from MS. As 'strange' as MS can be sometimes, they
> will *not* share your email address with 3rd parties if you choose that
> option.
Not true. I opened a Hotmail account years ago and never gave it to
anyone. I use it to see how my template emails look in Hotmail. All
these years, I received nothing in that account. A couple of months ago
I signed on to download Win 7 Enterprise and unticked everything that
could remotely be conceived as permission to share my email address.
Since then, I have receive at least ten spam emails a day for everything
from Viagra to the Nigerian scam to penis enlargement. I also get
regular spam messages from Microsoft itself.
--
C
John
fraction of several million US$ from a Nigerian prince. I can finally retire
early. How cool is that? The internet is so awesome!
"Toni" <Ton...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e9ehipnq...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
John
suffering from your action, if the address exists.
"Toni" <Ton...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u$69J3nqK...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Twayne
If Ton...@yahoo.com isn't YOUR address, it IS someone's address, so chances
are excellent you have just exposed an innocent bystander to the world to
get spam. That's a very rude and abhorrant practice and you need to consider
stopping it immediately. If toni24 should come across your admission, I can
only guess what they'll do for you re spam or reputation.
Please grow up and get an address that's intended for such use. Do NOT make
up names. You can always use inv...@invalid.inv or one of the thousands of
others maintained for just this specific use.
--
Life is the only real counselor; wisdom unfiltered
through personal experience does not become a
part of the moral tissue.
Greg Russell
Twayne <nob...@spamcop.net> typed:
>> No, I haven't :)
>
> If Ton...@yyyyy.con isn't YOUR address, it IS someone's address, so
> chances are excellent you have just exposed an innocent bystander to
> the world to get spam. That's a very rude and abhorrant practice and
> you need to consider stopping it immediately.
But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent bystander?
Hypocrite ...
Lem
So *you* think that yyyyy.con (with an "n") is a valid domain?
Bob I
Lem wrote:
> Greg Russell wrote:
>
>> In news:OHIGsPoq...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
>> Twayne <nob...@spamcop.net> typed:
>>
>>>> No, I haven't :)
>>>
>>> If Ton...@yyyyy.con isn't YOUR address, it IS someone's address, so
>>> chances are excellent you have just exposed an innocent bystander to
>>> the world to get spam. That's a very rude and abhorrant practice and
>>> you need to consider stopping it immediately.
>>
>>
>> But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent bystander?
>> Hypocrite ...
>>
>>
>
> So *you* think that yyyyy.con (with an "n") is a valid domain?
>
Greg munged it, Twayne didn't.
Unknown
such a question??
<lemp40@unknownhost> wrote in message
news:OYAal1oq...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Lem
I stand corrected.
Greg Russell
Lem <lemp40@unknownhost> typed:
>>>> No, I haven't :)
>>> If Ton...@yyyyy.con isn't YOUR address, it IS someone's address, so
>>> chances are excellent you have just exposed an innocent bystander to
>>> the world to get spam. That's a very rude and abhorrant practice and
>>> you need to consider stopping it immediately.
>>
>> But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent
>> bystander? Hypocrite ...
>
> So *you* think that yyyyy.con (with an "n") is a valid domain?
No, I don't ... the enitre point of this exercise is to *NOT* use a valid
domain when munging ones email address. That way, when the spammers harvest
email addresses from Usenet, the invalid domains just generate useless,
non-routable traffic for the spammers' smtp transactions instead of
"joe-jobbing" any innocent bystander as the OP has the likelihood of having
done.
"Let's put on our thinking caps" seems to be a valid admonishment for such a
response as yours.
![PA Bear [MS MVP]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXsf05hH-R8XChS3fXPPzfoO8FYYxAKhT86KfPnIELr3QJ9tQ=s40-c)
PA Bear [MS MVP]
HeyBub
Hypocrisy gets a bad rap. After all, 90% of gynecologists are men.
Toni
:
>
> You used a valid domain "yahoo.com", so any local address associated with
> that domain, even if you just "made it up", is almost ceratin to generate
> spam for someone totally unaware that you posted their email address in
> Usenet.
It bounces.
Toni
> Are you also in the market for a bridge?
>
I already sold one.
Wanna buy the Statue of Liberty?
Greg Russell
Toni <Ton...@yahoo.com> typed:
Today, you mean. Tomorrow someday, when someone actually claims that
routable address, then it won't, and they'll receive the spam you set them
up for, not to mention any increased smtp rejection load by Yahoo!'s servers
until then.
Use an invalid, unroutable address or else your own, if indeed you feel
compelled to supply one.
Toni
Twayne
Today maybe. Can you guarantee that name will never be used?
--
Twayne
Greg Russell <grus...@invlaid.com> typed:
OOPS! That was dumb, I agree. I meant to munge that beyond recognition but
got interrupted.
You little piss-ant! Hey if you can engage in name calling so can I. Do
onto others ... .
Shenan Stanley
<unrelated to rest of conversation, feel free to browse it all>
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/52fd5e44735a9a76/
</unrelated to rest of conversation, feel free to browse it all>
Twayne wrote:
> If <address originally posted by OP> isn't YOUR address, it IS
> someone's address, so chances are excellent you have just
> exposed an innocent bystander to the world to get spam. That's
> a very rude and abhorrant practice and you need to consider
> stopping it immediately. If toni24 should come across your
> admission, I can only guess what they'll do for you re spam or
> reputation.
> Please grow up and get an address that's intended for such use. Do
> NOT make up names. You can always use inv...@invalid.inv or one of
> the thousands of others maintained for just this specific use.
Greg Russell wrote:
> But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent
> bystander? Hypocrite ...
Twayne wrote:
> OOPS! That was dumb, I agree. I meant to munge that beyond
> recognition but got interrupted.
>
> You little piss-ant! Hey if you can engage in name calling so can
> I. Do onto others ... .
I cannot say, without question, that "Greg Russell" did any name calling.
Defined exactly what had happened, okay. You even admitted to it happening
and your involvement.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
( 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or
feelings )
However - yours comment is - without a doubt - name calling for no other
purpose than abuse.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piss-ant
( sometimes vulgar : one that is insignificant -used as a generalized term
of abuse )
Now - more than likely, Greg Russell meant it as an abusive comment; doesn't
mean it had to be taken in that manner and returned in kind (nor was there
any guarantee it was being 'returned in kind'.)
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Greg Russell
Shenan Stanley <newsh...@gmail.com> typed:
> Twayne wrote:
>> OOPS! That was dumb, I agree. I meant to munge that beyond
>> recognition but got interrupted.
...
> Now - more than likely, Greg Russell meant it as an abusive comment;
> doesn't mean it had to be taken in that manner and returned in kind
> (nor was there any guarantee it was being 'returned in kind'.)
Actually, it was intended as a simple statement of fact, as "Twayne" has
honestly ackowledged.
If it helps reduce the total volume of spam in any way whatsoever, then it's
served it's purpose.
MowGreen
MowGreen
================
* -343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
================
banthecheck.com
"Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
Shenan Stanley
<unrelated to rest of conversation, feel free to browse it all>
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/52fd5e44735a9a76/
</unrelated to rest of conversation, feel free to browse it all>
Twayne wrote:
> If <address originally posted by OP> isn't YOUR address, it IS
> someone's address, so chances are excellent you have just
> exposed an innocent bystander to the world to get spam. That's
> a very rude and abhorrant practice and you need to consider
> stopping it immediately. If toni24 should come across your
> admission, I can only guess what they'll do for you re spam or
> reputation.
> Please grow up and get an address that's intended for such use. Do
> NOT make up names. You can always use inv...@invalid.inv or one of
> the thousands of others maintained for just this specific use.
Greg Russell wrote:
> But it's alright for *you* to once again expose that innocent
> bystander? Hypocrite ...
Twayne wrote:
> OOPS! That was dumb, I agree. I meant to munge that beyond
> recognition but got interrupted.
>
> You little piss-ant! Hey if you can engage in name calling so can
> I. Do onto others ... .
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> I cannot say, without question, that "Greg Russell" did any name
> calling.
>
> Defined exactly what had happened, okay. You even admitted to it
> happening and your involvement.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
> ( 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated
> beliefs or feelings )
>
> However - yours comment is - without a doubt - name calling for no
> other purpose than abuse.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piss-ant
> ( sometimes vulgar : one that is insignificant -used as a
> generalized term of abuse )
>
> Now - more than likely, Greg Russell meant it as an abusive
> comment; doesn't mean it had to be taken in that manner and
> returned in kind (nor was there any guarantee it was being
> 'returned in kind'.)
Greg Russell wrote:
> Actually, it was intended as a simple statement of fact, as
> "Twayne" has honestly ackowledged.
>
> If it helps reduce the total volume of spam in any way whatsoever,
> then it's served it's purpose.
Latter half: Without a doubt, but beyond the scope of my response.
Former half: "Do unto others" by Twayne was not needed/far from equal
especially as you now better defined your choice of words; although the
wording of your "statement of fact" could have been rearranged as such,
"Looks hypocritical..."; which would have seemed less "point and accuse" and
more "statement of fact/interpretation" for most people.
Greg Russell
news:OR2Rub3q...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Former half: "Do unto others" by Twayne was not needed/far from equal
> especially as you now better defined your choice of words; although the
> wording of your "statement of fact" could have been rearranged as such,
> "Looks hypocritical..."; which would have seemed less "point and accuse"
and
> more "statement of fact/interpretation" for most people.
Oh geez ... here we go with that politically-correct crap ...
Shenan Stanley
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Latter half: Without a doubt, but beyond the scope of my response.
>
> Former half: "Do unto others" by Twayne was not needed/far from
> equal especially as you now better defined your choice of words;
> although the wording of your "statement of fact" could have been
> rearranged as such, "Looks hypocritical..."; which would have
> seemed less "point and accuse" and more "statement of
> fact/interpretation" for most people.
Greg Russell wrote:
> Oh geez ... here we go with that politically-correct crap ...
No - nothing to do with politcal correctness...
The statement was hypocritical and thus the the person making it was a
hypocrite. One could choose to go either way when pointing this out.
One could choose the, "Point out the person making the contradicting
statement(s)" route.
One could choose the, "Point out the contradicting statement(s)" route.
Merely pointing out the differences between the two possible paths. It
*could* have been rearranged, not *should*. Comprehension is the important
part of reading. ;-)
Saucy
of an MS-MVP.
:oD
lol
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eV2xb3#qKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Greg Russell
Shenan Stanley <newsh...@gmail.com> typed:
> One could choose to go either way when pointing this out.
>
> One could choose <this ...>
> One could choose <taht ...>
You sound like the typical undergraduate who's taking a psychology class and
thinks they understand how everyone "could be" ... if they only tried.
Shenan Stanley
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> No - nothing to do with politcal correctness...
>
> The statement was hypocritical and thus the the person making it
> was a hypocrite. One could choose to go either way when pointing
> this out.
>
> One could choose the, "Point out the person making the contradicting
> statement(s)" route.
> One could choose the, "Point out the contradicting statement(s)"
> route.
>
> Merely pointing out the differences between the two possible paths.
> It *could* have been rearranged, not *should*. Comprehension is
> the important part of reading. ;-)
Greg Russell wrote:
> You sound like the typical undergraduate who's taking a psychology
> class and thinks they understand how everyone "could be" ... if
> they only tried.
No.
I am just pointing out the difference in the the way one could have
referenced the hypocritical statement.
You chose to reference the person making the statement, not the statement
itself. It could have been done referencing the statement, not the person.
It's not a hard concept. I could care less which way everyone chooses, I am
just pointing out two ways that could have been chosen.
If you have difficulty understanding that or feel a need to read something
into it - that's *your* problem.
People will do what people have always done.
Greg Russell
Shenan Stanley <newsh...@gmail.com> typed:
>> I cannot say, without question, that "Greg Russell" did any name
>> calling.
I'm calling you a mindless, sexless fucking jerk.