GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Clever ways to comply with can-spam while still defeating a surfer's safeguards

mardigras · 05-23-2004, 11:42 AM

I get so many e-mails that declare in the message that they are can-spam compliant and offer supposed remove links, but until today I haven't received any adult spams with the required sexually explicit notice in the subject line. I have all my wanted mail filtered to other folders so my inbox is the ton of porn spam and penis pill ads bastards send to my webmaster addresses.

Today I finally get a couple that have it but munges it by saying:

Note:SexuallyExplicit

and

SEXUALLYEXPLICITSSoccor MOM Milf's are my fantasy

(notice the extra S inthe 2nd one), both cases obviously designed to thwart email filters against "sexually explicit".

Is that really "compliant"? Would someone enforcing can-spam think so? I mean it's better that it's there, but an increase of people sending spam they think is now sanctioned to people who are actively trying to avoid it only going to cause more negative attention and further legistations against the industry.

The first e-mail even munged the remove link with the phrase
"All rvmeoe requests are hoeonrd, please alolw 5 business days to pocrses", hitting the likely words that would be filtered. I've geen getting variations on that for awhile. Of course we all have gotten our share of munged subject lines (pen1s p1lls, etc.) and other trickery forever which led to can-spam in the first place.

Can anyone here defend these techinques? Even if not from a legal standpoint, a business one? I believe that all sales from these mails come only from surfers who didn't filter in the first place. Any proof you make more when you do this than if you did it the way it is supposed to be? But if you'd like to address the legalities and backlashes I'd like to hear your input on that too. I know we live in a me now today world but aren't you even slightly interested in insuring your future income? I'm not even suggesting you should think of others, continue to think about just yourself, but think about yourself a few more days into the calander.

I predict we'll hear bravos about can-spam being a good start during the election and for the need to further regulate. Keep contributing to the problem and it probably won't matter which party is in the White House. There are bound to be at least afew Democrats who don't appreciate the same porn affiliate links being sent to them multiple times every day.

When the wolf is breathing down your neck you don't sit down to take a dump

05-23-2004, 11:42 AM
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	Clever ways to comply with can-spam while still defeating a surfer's safeguards I get so many e-mails that declare in the message that they are can-spam compliant and offer supposed remove links, but until today I haven't received any adult spams with the required sexually explicit notice in the subject line. I have all my wanted mail filtered to other folders so my inbox is the ton of porn spam and penis pill ads bastards send to my webmaster addresses. Today I finally get a couple that have it but munges it by saying: Note:SexuallyExplicit and SEXUALLYEXPLICITSSoccor MOM Milf's are my fantasy (notice the extra S inthe 2nd one), both cases obviously designed to thwart email filters against "sexually explicit". Is that really "compliant"? Would someone enforcing can-spam think so? I mean it's better that it's there, but an increase of people sending spam they think is now sanctioned to people who are actively trying to avoid it only going to cause more negative attention and further legistations against the industry. The first e-mail even munged the remove link with the phrase "All rvmeoe requests are hoeonrd, please alolw 5 business days to pocrses", hitting the likely words that would be filtered. I've geen getting variations on that for awhile. Of course we all have gotten our share of munged subject lines (pen1s p1lls, etc.) and other trickery forever which led to can-spam in the first place. Can anyone here defend these techinques? Even if not from a legal standpoint, a business one? I believe that all sales from these mails come only from surfers who didn't filter in the first place. Any proof you make more when you do this than if you did it the way it is supposed to be? But if you'd like to address the legalities and backlashes I'd like to hear your input on that too. I know we live in a me now today world but aren't you even slightly interested in insuring your future income? I'm not even suggesting you should think of others, continue to think about just yourself, but think about yourself a few more days into the calander. I predict we'll hear bravos about can-spam being a good start during the election and for the need to further regulate. Keep contributing to the problem and it probably won't matter which party is in the White House. There are bound to be at least afew Democrats who don't appreciate the same porn affiliate links being sent to them multiple times every day. When the wolf is breathing down your neck you don't sit down to take a dump __________________ .