jkroon

Those who know me will know that I do NOT take kindly to this kind of crap.  In fact, I generally reply to this kind of stuff with something down these lines (what I sent in this case):

Ok, so my opening line is a bit rude.  And I made the mistake of accidentally hitting reply all instead of reply.  I did get one or two responses telling my “nice, my sentiment exactly”.  A few minutes later I received this response:

Which is fair enough, my email is readily available on the internet.  However, the particular email address this ass spammed (and yes, he is an ass, and yes, it is legally spam) me was never submitted to any databases by myself, thus it was snarfed somehow by some crawler (simple enough to write).  Nice.  Ok, I replied to this with:

By this time a bug in their system has started exposing itself and the original message has already come through another two times, so on the third receipt I proceeded to blacklist *@nashuamobile.com from sending email to my domains.  Since my phone number is also readily available (as expressed by the fact that two of the co-recipients of Nashua Mobile’s spam has already called me) they do have avenue to contact me should they wish to have this blacklisting removed from my servers.

As noted earlier, I made the mistake of hitting reply-all.  As it turns out, Nashua Mobile has now not only infringed on the ECT act they’ve now also taken to identity theft!  These are the (partial) headers from an email received by the victims of this Nashua Mobile “problem” (all Received: headers are present, just to be clear, I’ve only replaced the particular recipients email address, and changed the hostnames of their servers, and IPs):

Received: from mail.victim.co.za (192.168.1.4) by
 internal-mail.victim.co.za (192.168.1.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server id
 8.1.340.0; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:55:14 +0200
Received: from ctb-mesg-1-3.saix.net (ctb-mesg-1-3.saix.net [196.25.240.81])
	by mail.victem.co.za (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2J5t43O006439	for
 <fellow@victim.co.za>; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:55:04 +0200
Received: from 2t3s134.co.za (unknown [41.247.157.20])	by
 ctb-mesg-1-3.saix.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B904768B7	for
 <fellow@victim.co.za>; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:58:12 +0200 (SAST)
Received: from [192.168.30.1] (port=59872 helo=mail.tellermate.co.za)	by
 2t3s134.co.za with esmtp (Exim 4.66)	(envelope-from <jaco@kroon.co.za>)	id
 1LkBDY-0002LG-E9	for fellow@victim.co.za; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:55:01 +0200
Received: from mail pickup service by mail.tellermate.co.za with Microsoft
From: Jaco Kroon <jaco@kroon.co.za>
X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081217)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Shawn Ferreira" <ShawnF@nashuamobile.com>,
        "IMB Recipient 47" <mspop3connector.info@TELLERMATE.CO.ZA>
 SMTPSVC;	 Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:00:57 +0200
Subject: Re: Nashua Mobile 3G data/voice
Return-Path: jaco@kroon.co.za

Ok, first things first.  The IMB Recipient 47 in the To: field is NOT in my original email, this must’ve gotten added at some point (don’t know, don’t care).  Secondly, you’ll note that the first (chronological order, keep in mind that Received: headers are in reverse order) received header is indicating that there is some mail pickup service (mail.tellermate.co.za) that’s being used to pick up mail somehow, this then goes out to some system before it’s being pushed out to smtp.saix.net (which will fortunately restrict them to “cold calling” somewhere between 300-400 email recipients per hour).

None of my mail servers are listed ANYWHERE in this chain.  I have no clue whether an identity theft charge will stick in court as they can very easily claim that I did in fact send the original mail and that the duplication was accidental.  However, there is no way for me to explain this to about 140 other people who is now pissed off at ME for spamming them to smithereens (I’ve had reports this morning at 8:30 already of people having received my email around 20 times):

Wel, 200 klink erger as die ongeveer 20 wat ek nou al ontvang het – sterkte met al die rubbish op jou kop!

Which translates to “well, 200 sounds worse than the approximately 20 which I’ve now received”.

I have also called Nashua Mobile twice now regarding the issue.  In the first call I’ve been promised a call back (That was at 8:30 this morning).  I’m still waiting.  At around 10:00 I gave them another call, at which point a David helped me, he was quite helpful, however, I’m still waiting for confirmation that the issue has been resolved.  The last bounce that came in was at around 12:45 which seems to indicate that they’ve at least stopped sending my email out.  However, I’m still receiving large amounts of “delay” notifications.

Apparently Mr Shawn is also a rather rude fellow, as per another email I’ve received from another (not the above) fellow victim:

What I would like to see happen:

1. Nashua Mobile issueing an appology (public statement, at least to those affected) for:
   1. spamming.
   2. listing 140 people in To: header whilst doing so.
   3. doing so repeatedly.
   4. impersonating myself and repeatedly sending MY email out to that 140 or so people, putting a black mark on my name as well as their own.
2. Nashua Mobile should take action against Mr Shawn Ferreira for the above actions.
3. They should also prevent it from happening again, and issue a publicly available policy against such action.

At this point I have not laid charges yet, albeit, I have been encouraged by some friends of mine that would be able to (and by the sounds of it, wants to) take the fight to Nashua Mobile.