Just wanted to post the response I got from an anonymous coward ("LG")
at liquidgeneration.com, aka lgix.net, in response to a request of
mine to remove all addresses at my domain from his non-confirmed
mailing list. I also pointed out a header forgery that he tried to
bluff away but still exists (albeit in a slightly different form).
They're hosted at rackspace, so I suspect a lot of you are already
blocking them. The response below was cc:'d to Rackspace abuse.
Hopefully rackspace will continue waking up and take some action on
this fellow, along with their other difficulties...
----- begin response to "LG at liquidgeneration.com"
"scumbag.liquidgeneration.com" was a nonexistent host (per DNS lookup)
when the letter I included below was received - ergo, a forgery. It's
still a forgery now - I see that you've set up an address that it
resolves to, but it still isn't 64.49.254.146, as you claimed in the
headers of your unsolicited mail. (It currently resolves to
65.61.131.209.)
Again, I request that you immediately remove ALL mypants.com addresses
from your database, and prevent acceptance of any further
'mypants.com' addresses. I won't be signing up for your services or
recommending them to others. I strongly suggest that you start
confirming submitted addresses before using them in the future, as
suggested along with other helpful tips at
http://mail-abuse.org/manage.html. It would keep you from running
into these difficulties.
You might also try to make sure that your provided 'From:' and
'Return-Path:' address exists:
---
<newsletter@liquidgeneration.com>: host
liquidgeneration.com[209.61.178.114]
said: 550 User newsletter@liquidgeneration.com not found.
---
(Of course, this kind of forgery is very common in unsolicited
commercial email.)
I don't use 'remove' instructions found in unsolicited commercial
email. My only other method of unsubscribing from a list to which
I've never subscribed is to contact your provider. I'll continue to
do that. I'll also be posting this to at least one Usenet newsgroup.
Too bad you're unable or unwilling to send mail with your real name,
BTW, "LG." Is that you, Simon?
- Greg Samson, mypants.com webmaster/ownerRead the rest of this message... (100 more lines)
Round 2 - this time, cc:'d to Marc Piven, VP Sales/Marketing at
liquidgeneration.com, as well as abuse at rackspace.
--- Their message with headers (strangely enough, delivered to me in
base64)
Return-Path: <liquidmail@lgix.net>
Received: from zippy.lgix.net (223-31.dslpool.net [64.254.223.31])
by sack.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7DF13E289
for <webmasteratmypantsdotcom>; Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:01:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2C10A.D54A65A4"
Subject: RE: [email] FWD UCE: LiquidGeneration Newsletter
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 23:06:19 -0600
Message-ID: <40EA14D5FA432142AB5F714FBF8270E0524524@zippy.lgix.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [email] FWD UCE: LiquidGeneration Newsletter
Thread-Index: AcLA+P7VSRZde15hRcSN654lofmYugADl7lm
From: "LiquidGeneration" <liquidmail@lgix.net>
To: "Greg Samson" <webmasteratmypantsdotcom>
X-SpamBouncer: 1.5 (11/12/02)
X-SBNote: From Admin
X-SBRule: Base64 encoding
X-SBClass: BlockedThanks for the advice. There is method to our
madness. The reverse DNS points to the machine's primary address (146)
and its web is configured for its secondary.
In any case, the only mypants.com email in our dB is mike.oxbig. He
subscribed on 11/9/2002 6:53:48 PM. If you want to unsubscribe him,
have him follow the removal link at the bottom of the newsletter. If
you choose not to follow directions then may your complaints find more
sympathetic ears.
Love,
LG
--- My response:
Method to madness or not, it means you are forging headers in your
email. (Your most recent reply contains forged headers too -
zippy.lgix.net doesn't exist.) That's all it takes for me to submit a
complaint in Washington state. I'm a Washington state resident.
I'm also not about to unsubscribe from something that I didn't
Read the rest of this message... (35 more lines)
In article <b0kr9u$qale5$1@ID-80008.news.dfncis.de>, "Greg Samson" <uwiz@cluestick.org> wrote:
>
>Again I repeat my request: please remove ALL 'mypants.com' addresses
>from your list, and please block future attempts to subscribe from
>'mypants.com' addresses. I am the only authorized user and won't be
>using or recommending your service.
Neither will any user of the mail servers at any of the domains I control.
LG's entire operation is blocked permanently from delivering to our servers.
--
Want SPEWS-filtered and SBL-filtered email?
http://www.spamblocked.com/index.html
Fight spam! Help Joey McNichol!
http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/
It just keeps getting better. Executive summary: apparently they
don't want to unsubscribe the forged address they have, because "it
might be an employee of mine," and they refuse requests like that from
employers.
...Excuse me?
Next up is a CC: to Interscope records - the website is apparently
advertising a contest sponsored by them...
---
[CC:'d to Marc Kiven and to Rackspace abuse, and to Usenet. Mr.
Kiven, do you seriously want email like this to be sent out by people
hiding behind liquidgeneration.com's name?]
"LG," whoever you are - you're kidding, right?
You seem to be suggesting that an employee of mine signed up an email
address at my domain for your newsletter. Were that the case, I would
have full ability to dictate HOW the mailbox related to that email
address is to be used, as the employer. Are you seriously saying that
you refuse requests from employers to stop misusing their property?
You must be in even more local blocklists than I thought!
In any case, there is no Mike Oxbig, and I have no employees, so
that's beside the point.
Even better, though, you started by showing evidence that NO ONE
originally subscribed to your newsletter from the 'mypants.com'
domain. Your "sendtofriend.asp" page is set up to subscribe whatever
address is typed into it, by default, to your newsletter without
performing even the most rudimentary check. (You also don't
apparently keep other important information, like from what IP address
the request originated, or at least you didn't choose to give that to
me.)
I again request that ALL 'mypants.com' addresses be removed
immediately from your list. Given your completely absent safeguards
against forged signups in your "sendtofriend.asp" page, I also again
request that you filter out ALL 'mypants.com' addresses used on that
page or in any other way submitted to you to subscribe to your site.
As I've stated repeatedly, I am the only authorized user of the
'mypants.com' domain and I certainly will not be using any of your
"services". I'll be actively disrecommending that anyone else use
them as well.
Further receipt of your "newsletters", or any other bulk email
originating from your site, will be reported to the Washington state
office of the Attorney General.
Read the rest of this message... (47 more lines)
In article <b0n05i$r77nu$1@ID-80008.news.dfncis.de>, "Greg Samson" <uwiz@cluestick.org> wrote:
>It just keeps getting better. Executive summary: apparently they
>don't want to unsubscribe the forged address they have, because "it
>might be an employee of mine," and they refuse requests like that from
>employers.
Point of order: The employer is the *OWNER* of the resources in question. To
refuse to unsubscribe a (putative) employee is to knowingly and with malice
commit theft by conversion and trespass to chattel. cf. Compuserve vs.
Cyberpromotions, US District Court in Ohio, 1996-97
File a complaint with your local District Attorney *now*.
--
Want SPEWS-filtered and SBL-filtered email?
http://www.spamblocked.com/index.html
Fight spam! Help Joey McNichol!
http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/
"Morely Dotes" <morelydotes+nanae@spamblocked.com> wrote in message
news:b0m847.g7o.1@news2.spamblocked.com...
> Point of order: The employer is the *OWNER* of the resources in question. To
> refuse to unsubscribe a (putative) employee is to knowingly and with malice
> commit theft by conversion and trespass to chattel. cf. Compuserve vs.
> Cyberpromotions, US District Court in Ohio, 1996-97
>
> File a complaint with your local District Attorney *now*.
Yes, my thinking exactly - though I didn't have this reference to dump
on them. I will do so in my next reply to them though. Thanks for
the input!
--
u w i z a t c l u e s t i c k d o t o r g
Round 3:
...I guess there was no round 3. It's now after midnight where they
are, and no missive has arrived from them today.
I suspect I've been listwashed, at least. Hopefully wiser heads
within or outside their organization pointed out to anonymous coward
"LG" that, if they're really refusing to unsubscribe employee work
email addresses at the request of the employer as they claimed,
they're committing civil trespass and would be liable.
I can only hope that someone from Interscope (Universal), or anyone
else who advertises on Liquid Generation, stumbles across this thread.
And, of course, I'll keep a lookout for the arrival of their next
newsletter, just in case they haven't figured things out.
Thanks for reading, and thanks, Google, for being such a great archive
:)
--
u w i z a t c l u e s t i c k d o t o r g
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:49:51 -0800, "Greg Samson" <uwiz@cluestick.org>
posted:
>It just keeps getting better. Executive summary: apparently they
>don't want to unsubscribe the forged address they have, because "it
>might be an employee of mine," and they refuse requests like that from
>employers.
big snip
>> Sender: mikedotoxbigatmypantsdotcom
>> Subscribe: True
>> Recipient: aaronbb1982@******.******
>> Content: sabotage/worm_sabotage.asp
>> Date/Time Sent: 11/9/2002 6:53:48 P.M.
>> Date/Time Clicked by recipient: 11/9/2002 6:55:40 P.M.
>> Message: Hello. I thought you'd like this. Please have your volume up! Have a nice day!
>>
>>
>> Believe us that we would have happily removed him by now if we were
>confident that he indeed wanted to be removed. Have you any idea how
>many webmasters want us to remove their employees due to content
>pieces like the worm sabotage? We decline them all.
Oh, THAT's cute! Translation: We won't *remove* anyone unless we are
confident that they really want to be removed, but we'll let them be
*subscribed* without the same "confidence".'
Rick
--
Advertisers: An expectation of revenue on your part does not constitute
an obligation on my part.
Rick Blackthorn wrote:
>> Believe us that we would have happily removed him by now if we were
>> confident that he indeed wanted to be removed. Have you any idea how
>> many webmasters want us to remove their employees due to content
>> pieces like the worm sabotage? We decline them all.
>
> Oh, THAT's cute! Translation: We won't *remove* anyone unless we are
> confident that they really want to be removed, but we'll let them be
> *subscribed* without the same "confidence".'
Yeah, isn't that great? It allows them to claim an ever-increasing
number of "subscribers"!
Hopefully my little interchange with them will lead to at least one
subtraction from their list...
Thanks again Google :)
--
u w i z a t c l u e s t i c k d o t o r g
©2004 Google