Anyone else been spammed by Andy Boland at "Function5 Technology Group"? -r
On 04/27/2015 07:02 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Anyone else been spammed by Andy Boland at "Function5 Technology Group"?
I'm not sure it's fair to class the e-mail as "spam", but he is one persistent fellow. My company made list for some of the equipment we retired for purchase, and his Cisco buyer never got back to me. So the excess inventory is being offered to another reseller. There does seem to be a disconnect between the front office and the back office. That could be part of the reason for the mailout repetition.
Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> writes:
On 04/27/2015 07:02 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Anyone else been spammed by Andy Boland at "Function5 Technology Group"?
I'm not sure it's fair to class the e-mail as "spam", but he is one persistent fellow. My company made list for some of the equipment we retired for purchase, and his Cisco buyer never got back to me. So the excess inventory is being offered to another reseller.
Well, it's unsolicited email from a company who I've never had any commercial relationship with. If it's not fair to class it as spam, what is it fair to class it as? I reported it to the appropriate abuse folks. -r
Given we’re going down this “what is spam” rathole again, spam is generally defined as unsolicited BULK email As the email appears to be one to one, though a remarkably persistent one to one, I would suggest procmail, unless you know he’s harvested nanog and is sending the same offer mail merged to a bunch of operators. —srs
On 28-Apr-2015, at 8:29 am, Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
On 04/27/2015 07:02 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Anyone else been spammed by Andy Boland at "Function5 Technology Group"?
I'm not sure it's fair to class the e-mail as "spam", but he is one persistent fellow. My company made list for some of the equipment we retired for purchase, and his Cisco buyer never got back to me. So the excess inventory is being offered to another reseller.
Well, it's unsolicited email from a company who I've never had any commercial relationship with. If it's not fair to class it as spam, what is it fair to class it as?
I reported it to the appropriate abuse folks.
Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> writes:
Given weâ(TM)re going down this âoewhat is spamâY\.. rathole again, spam is generally defined as unsolicited BULK email
Correct, and moreover it's generally conceded that having a perl script insert "Dear Robert" at the beginning of the email message is insufficient for it to not be "bulk", particularly if it's general and has nothing to do with any kind of specialized knowledge of your company beyond the fact that you have an email address. This sure looks like bulk mail merge to me.
As the email appears to be one to one,
Have you gotten a copy too, or are you just idly speculating here?
though a remarkably persistent one to one, I would suggest procmail, unless you know heâ(TM)s harvested nanog and is sending the same offer mail merged to a bunch of operators.
Gee, it's almost as if by posing a question to nanog@ like "Has anyone else received spam from X", I might be trying to ascertain an answer to precisely that question. -r
On 04/27/2015 08:30 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> writes:
though a remarkably persistent one to one, I would suggest procmail, unless you know heâ(TM)s harvested nanog and is sending the same offer mail merged to a bunch of operators.
Gee, it's almost as if by posing a question to nanog@ like "Has anyone else received spam from X", I might be trying to ascertain an answer to precisely that question.
Key data point: If the mail was being spammed to NANOG, I would have received that mail at this address, one of several that I use specifically for public mailing lists. The mail I did receive (multiple e-mail letters, by the way, some of them obvious form letters) came to my primary work address, which had been used in the past to contact that company to buy equipment. So my answer to your precise question would be "no".
As more and more "legitimate" companies exploit email as a free resource I think we're going to need to broaden the definition of spam. Email is already on the verge of useless. And a lot of that is just pitches from orgs one would, under old definitions, argue are not spam. So the question is whether spam, and we can quibble the word, only email which is UBE or is it email which is rendering the technology useless? I think we've mistakenly via UBE definitions given out free licenses to dump pollution in our drinking water. If you don't think that's a problem right now that's ok I'll be back in a year and two. I believe hearts and minds will change towards my way of thinking about this, it's just a matter of pain threshold. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:39:12PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
As more and more "legitimate" companies exploit email as a free resource I think we're going to need to broaden the definition of spam.
Absolutely not. The canonical -- and only correct -- definition is UBE, as Suresh pointed out. It has served us well for decades and it continues to do so. HOWEVER -- there are other forms of abuse carried by SMTP and we have names for some of those. If it turns out that yet one more form of abuse is becoming a problem and thus we need a term to refer to it, we can and should come up with one. It's also worth noting that some instances of abuse can be described by more than one term. Abusers, unfortunately, can be quite creative and prolific. ---rsk
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:39:12 -0400, Barry Shein said:
Email is already on the verge of useless. And a lot of that is just pitches from orgs one would, under old definitions, argue are not spam.
That prompts two questions: (a) How do you define "useless" and (b) what do you advocate as a replacement? (You want to stress-test your MUA, subscribe to the linux-kernel mailing list, which runs anywhere from 700 to 1100 posts. Per day. And the list is well-run, we see single-digits of spam per week.)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
Anyone else been spammed by Andy Boland at "Function5 Technology Group"?
No, but I feel your pain. Two jokers have been trying since July to recruit me as an Aflac salesman. Hear from them every few weeks. -Bill -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
participants (7)
-
Barry Shein -
Rich Kulawiec -
Rob Seastrom -
Stephen Satchell -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Herrin