Celebrity Cruises Still Spamming
Celebrity Cruises still wants my mother to sign up for a cruise. She tells me that she never asked to be on their list. I believe her: she’s afraid of drowning and refuses get on any sort of boat. She’s been receiving these emails for over a year, and has never responded to any of them. The ESP is still ExactTarget.
I looked at hits on spamtraps at work and at Spamhaus. This sender doesn’t have many. Thunderbird filters these emails in her junk folder, so it isn’t a great issue. I doubt that it is intentional spam; Mum has a simple email address at a large ISP. Somebody probably just mistyped their email address when subscribing to Celebrity Cruises offers. It is however one small bit of low-level generalized garbage that infests email, and that must be dealt with by filters because this company that insists on using bulk email for marketing is unwilling to accept its responsibility to clean up after itself. If a user never responds to email, after six months or a year why is Celebrity Cruises still sending email to that account?
Source IP: 64.132.89.147
Headers:
Received: from mta.email.celebritycruises.com (aw147.mta.exacttarget.com [64.132.89.147])
by <redacted> (Postfix) with ESMTP id <redacted>
for <redacted>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 <redacted> -0600 (CST)
DKIM-Signature: <redacted>
DomainKey-Signature: <redacted>
Received: by mta.email.celebritycruises.com (PowerMTA(TM) v3.5r15) id <redacted>
for <redacted>; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 <redacted> -0600
(envelope-from <bounce-<redacted>@bounce.email.celebritycruises.com>)
From: "Celebrity Cruises" <News@email.celebritycruises.com>
To: <redacted>
Subject: Learn how to surround yourself in modern luxury for the holidays
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 <redacted> -0600
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-<redacted>@leave.email.celebritycruises.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: "Celebrity Cruises" <reply-<redacted>@email.celebritycruises.com>
x-job: <redacted>
Message-ID: <redacted>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="<redacted>"
Tom, they’re not really lighting up our policy compliance radar elsewhere, so I don’t know what to tell you. If you want, I can suppress your mom’s address, but I realize that this would bring the concern that we would just be list washing.
What I think is appropriate when I have an issue with only a single complaint, and not a real clear indication of a broader problem, is let the complainant know that we’ll keep an eye on this one, so that’s what I’m doing here. We’ve let the client know that they potentially have an issue here and made some suggestions, but this doesn’t yet rise to the level where I feel a policy compliance mandate is appropriate.
Apologies. I somehow missed your response, Al. I didn’t think that you were ignoring me. They aren’t lighting up our radar at Spamhaus either. I checked. Unless they start hitting spamtraps (plural), I do not consider this a problem requiring either you or us to act. Unfortunately the SBL is a great big bludgeon. Whilst I am perfectly willing to use it when a company is clearly spamming a purchased list or scraped addresses, using it for spam that is probably due to a typo is overkill.
I do think that companies that use bulk email are responsible to clean up after themselves. I also think that failing to confirm web form subscriptions isn’t cleaning up after yourself. I’d be much obliged if you would point this out to them.
Pingback: Cruise Companies of the World Want My Mum! » MainSleaze