RE: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking
As much as I hate to open this can of worms, I am online, I do work for AT&T and I do have a vested interest in SPAM and other ISP related issues. Some of you may recall I was the naive idiot that allowed AT&T to launch the Do Not Call Registry without first learning the rules, etiquette and proper structure of email. It caused a stir among many of you nanog'ers and a major pain for AT&T in email blocking and other unintended consequences. As the Government pushes through the maze in an effort to make sense of the CANSPAM Act, I continue to stay engaged and am most definitely an anti-spam proponent. When I saw Mr. Lorenz's post I immediately verified it did indeed come from AT&T and called the responsible party. Having spoken directly to her, I would like to point out that she did indeed take the time to research the FCC SPAM laws and has stuck to them. She has provided an opt-out message and assures me she takes it very seriously. If you have responded to her with a request to NOT be contacted again, you have not been. The other side of this coin is her responsibilities are to sell specifically to ISP's, she is young, aggressive and very successful. AT&T's new rate structure has been significantly reduced and this was an expedient way to get the word out. For nearly 80% of those on her mail list, there has been a very positive response and many smiling faces at the money they will be saving. I do not mean this to be a sales pitch, just a different perspective. My apologies to those that are/were offended. I will monitor all input from nanog on this communication chain and forward my (and your) thoughts to Ms. Macker for consideration and appropriate action. Thanks for listening!! Richard Callahan -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Dr. Jeffrey Race Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:40 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: SPAM Directly from AT&T Data Networking In the last few days I have had two spams with injection point 127.0.0.1. This definitely needs to be addressed by ATT. Anyone online from ATT like to say something? Jeffrey Race On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:17:08 -0400 (EDT), William R. Lorenz wrote:
So, with AT&T being a network provider at all, is it just
customary for
them to SPAM like this? This is the second one I've received from them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Yo Richard! On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Callahan, Richard M, GVSOL wrote:
She has provided an opt-out message and assures me she takes it very seriously. If you have responded to her with a request to NOT be contacted again, you have not been.
So do I have to opt-out with every single AT&T sales droid, and the new crop next month, or is this list AT&T wide? RGDS GARY - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAfZOs8KZibdeR3qURAox3AJ9orF8BbuBYutOSffh2DmKwbu4thQCghjad Zv146xDDpGLM+uxvPp8QXdk= =joUJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Yoi All! My apologies to the list for beating a dead horse. This was sent around noon today, but Merit had issues with my reverse DNS until later in the day.... RGDS GARY - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676 On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Gary E. Miller wrote:
So do I have to opt-out with every single AT&T sales droid, and the new crop next month, or is this list AT&T wide? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAffgT8KZibdeR3qURAgJAAKCTxvnT7LjOh25pctptvSGoDXs0kwCeITV8 eflP0dH6FWEgjXbYMkHpOl0= =ro6F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Callahan, Richard M, GVSOL wrote:
Having spoken directly to her, I would like to point out that she did indeed take the time to research the FCC SPAM laws and has stuck to them. She has provided an opt-out message and assures me she takes it very seriously. If you have responded to her with a request to NOT be contacted again, you have not been.
So AT&T condones the sending of bulk, unsolicited commercial email and permits its employees to do so and continue to do so until the victim begs that particular employee to stop? And then another AT&T salescritter can repeat the process? That's AT&T's official position? How well do you think this scales? -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - jay@west.net WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 WB6RDV NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/
"Callahan, Richard M, GVSOL" <rmcallahan@att.com> writes:
The other side of this coin is her responsibilities are to sell specifically to ISP's, she is young, aggressive and very successful.
Perhaps you can share her personal email account information with the list? From time to time I have random stuff to sell that might be appealing to a young, aggressive, and very successful sales exec. I know I'm not alone and though I'm far too ethical to spam people, I'm sure there are other folks here who would love to return the favor.
AT&T's new rate structure has been significantly reduced and this was an expedient way to get the word out. For nearly 80% of those on her mail list, there has been a very positive response and many smiling faces at the money they will be saving. I do not mean this to be a sales pitch, just a different perspective.
All of AT&T's competitors' rate structures have been significantly reduced over the past couple of years too; I wonder how many people are deciding that they'll invoke the Boulder Pledge (*) and take their business elsewhere. Please pass that comment along to management too, if you would. ---Rob (*) http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/boulder.shtml
At 5:11 PM -0400 4/14/04, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
All of AT&T's competitors' rate structures have been significantly reduced over the past couple of years too; I wonder how many people are deciding that they'll invoke the Boulder Pledge (*) and take their business elsewhere.
If a company shows a pattern of spam, boycotting makes perfect sense. You have to be a little careful acting on a single spam, since it can originate with a rogue employee. I've received such single incidents from almost every router vendor on the planet (and simply don't buy from the ones that fail to correct the problem). /John
John Curran wrote:
incidents from almost every router vendor on the planet (and simply don't buy from the ones that fail to correct the problem).
Yep, that's the important one to me. Most of the time I don't really care when a "brand" makes a stupid mistake, what I judge the company on is then how they correct their mistake. Many in my personal experience (AMEX & Orange in particular for me) fail to do anything and hope that you just go away. So I do. Oh, I then make sure anyone who asks for my opinion in that sector get my real views. Peter
Having spoken directly to her, I would like to point out that she did indeed take the time to research the FCC SPAM laws and has stuck to
them. She has provided an opt-out message and assures me she takes it very seriously. If you have responded to her with a request to NOT be contacted again, you have not been.<< Excellent, can I have an ATT address? Because there are about 100 million people I'd like to email and ask to buy my crap and I promise I'll use the correct return address and honor all opt-out requests. Geo.
Was anyone else having trouble reaching ARIN's DNS servers? I was unable to ping or query any of their public DNS servers for the past 20 minutes or so. Looks like they're working again. Andy
participants (8)
-
Andy Naylor -
Callahan, Richard M, GVSOL -
Gary E. Miller -
Geo. -
Jay Hennigan -
John Curran -
Peter Galbavy -
Robert E. Seastrom