[SURBL-Discuss] Proflowers again, was: Send Holiday Flowers for $24.99 plus Beautiful Glass Vase fromProflowers (fwd)

Nick Askew Nick at Askew.nl
Fri Dec 24 07:04:30 CET 2004


> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.surbl.org 
> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.surbl.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Chan
> Sent: 24 December 2004 03:51
> To: William Stearns
> Cc: SURBL Discussion list
> Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Proflowers again,was: Send 
> Holiday Flowers for $24.99 plus Beautiful Glass Vase 
> fromProflowers (fwd)
> 
> 
> On Thursday, December 23, 2004, 6:43:42 PM, William Stearns wrote:
> > Good evening, Jeff, all,
> 
> > On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Jeff Chan wrote:
> 
> >> On Thursday, December 23, 2004, 3:51:58 PM, Brett Cove wrote:
> >>> William Stearns wrote:
> >>>>     We discussed proflowers earlier this year.  To quote Jeff:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It also seems they're at least trying to cut back on 
> spamming if 
> >>>>> we accept the decrease in recent NANAS sightings.
> >>>>
> >>>>     I just received 4 more spams from them, one 
> attached.  Perhaps 
> >>>> they just get quiet between holidays?
> >>>>     I'd like to place one vote for blacklisting them.  Opinions?
> >>
> >>> We've seen piles of spam promoting proflowers.com in the past two 
> >>> days, all containing asandox.com uris and arriving via an 
> >>> asandox.com relay. IMO asando.com 
> >>> (http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL20781) is the uri 
> >>> that should be blocked, not proflowers.com.
> >>
> >> Thank you.  That is exactly the right way to reason things. If 
> >> asando_ is the actual spamming affiliate or whatever, then they 
> >> should be the ones to block.
> 
> >         It raises an interesting philosophical question; is the 
> > original
> > company that paid for the compaign and benefits from the sales 
> > responsible?  I don't claim to have an all-seeing answer, 
> and would like 
> > to hear other people's opinions.
> >         Cheers,
> >         - Bill
> 
> Yes, they're responsible.  Does that mean none of their 
> customers should be able to get their mail?
> 
> That's a much harder and more relevant philosophical question.
> 
I suppose it depends on the response of proflowers when they are told
that they are being promoted via spam. If they respond that this was
never their intention and the campaign will stop immediately then I'd
say leave them alone. However if they don't stop the campaign then block
them. Besides if you just block the spammer then proflowers will get the
messages that anti spamming doesn't directly hurt them only the spammer
and they will shift to another one.




More information about the Discuss mailing list