Nov
07
Symantec: still not getting it
Two weeks ago I wrote about how Symantec was not getting it. They still aren’t. Responsys aren’t helping, either.
Spamming IP: 12.130.139.5
Spam headers:
From symantec_communications-EMEA@symantec-corporation.com Mon Nov 7 11:39:29 2011 Return-Path: <symantec_communications-EMEA@symantec-corporation.com> Received: from om-symantecenterprise-emea.rsys3.com (om-symantecenterprise-emea.rsys3.com [12.130.139.5]) by mail.atrotossavainen.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98CAC7CC188 for <x@atro.fi>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:39:28 +0200 (EET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=symanteccorporation; d=symantec-corporation.com; h=MIME-Version:Content-Type:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Message-ID; i=symantec_communications-EMEA@symantec-corporation.com; bh=mTqIGxGoH1fQ0IN+r179mGRNW48=; b=hgQTyVEh3Anrl5YElnAvy5HSkTikpHLhDmE/ZRZDjtpvgBG0pHiU9ZBTJ0KOB0Yz64ZTCqM/Cm0x qby/4BTC0GhFpqKYXX2bdcvIB3onfjiLaZGuNodNBap8Zzrn4vuGrcKSEyYelZp7Ovu51ubq2q9X r/4AgcbfVDyYfd9Y7kI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; q=dns; s=symanteccorporation; d=symantec-corporation.com; b=kfCwYsI+G+e7XDkQTaMaJ4j+6vcRl1LaJ//eWlQ5+k+dTB8kYaPc8+hSJAKilneKeazMtlWKPMP5 y3ugci3UWUqv5gbhTMk4gsQJqn/zK7Q9s/tvAIJPhgqrBp0kYb1PphGERioFcVVWen7mgWsIXHw7 xUABM1Lr+5wSAPR8j3g=; Received: by om-symantecenterprise-emea.rsys3.com (PowerMTA(TM) v3.5r17) id hmujl00morc6 for <jussi.ruuskanen@atro.fi>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 01:39:22 -0800 (envelope-from <symantec_communications-EMEA@symantec-corporation.com>) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----msg_border" Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 01:39:22 -0800 From: "Symantec Finland" <symantec_communications-EMEA@symantec-corporation.com> Reply-To: "Symantec Finland" <symantec_communications-EMEA@symantec.com> Subject: =?UTF-8?B?VklFTMOEIEVIRElUIElMTU9JVFRBVVRVQSAtICBTeW1hbnRlYyA=?= =?UTF-8?B?VGVjaG5vbG9neSBEYXkgMTYuMTEuMjAxMSBIZWxzaW5naXNzw6Q=?= X-cid: smemea.2882.2 X-sgxh1: rmkkpQjmmksHgLgxHljhQMp To: x@atro.fi Message-ID: <0.0.5.50E.1CC9D312151CB20.0@om-symantecenterprise-emea.rsys3.com> Content-Length: 35330 Lines: 827
From what you said earlier, Symantec has been notified, so I’d say that rather than not getting it, they’re ignoring the opt-out request. That’s a bit odd. These days most companies, even those that spam shamelessly, will opt out an email address if the owner requests it. Even CAN-SPAM, a law so weak it’s nearly useless, requires that companies quit sending email when explicitly requested to do so. Was this spam hit on the same email address, or another email address at atro.fi?
The same address. For whatever it’s worth, I gave them a call on the number indicated in the spam and spoke to the person in charge of marketing – who apparently has been at the biz for a grand total of three weeks. I also forwarded the original email from June 14 and links to this site. Let’s see what comes of it.
Then this is a failure to honor opt-out, but not necessarily a purchased list or invalid address acquisition. That doesn’t make it any better (Symantec *damn* well knows better than to ignore opt-outs), but it’s a different problem than most of what I report.
Spamtraps don’t opt-out; if you do opt them out, then they aren’t the unresponsive email monitors that they’re supposed to be, but active participants in the game. I should blog about the differences between spam to spamtraps and spam to live email addresses…. The advantages of having your own personal email addresses spammed. <wry grin>
Now that we’re at almost a month live and have some data, I’m starting to think about more static pages that discuss how to “read” spam reports, what different evidence means, etc.
A significant part of the atro.fi stuff I report is not necessarily, even most likely not, a purchased list or invalid address acquisition.
The spam the domain gets may be indicative of failures to process bounces (assuming some sending took place between 9-1-2009 and 3-1-2010) and/or opt-outs (domain-wide opt-outs having been sent to various parties since 1-15-2010). Every single item sent to the old addresses of Savon Voima personnel is indicative of data protection failures on the senders’ behalf (as Article 6 (d) of the European data protection legislation mandates not processing inaccurate or outdated personal data).
Pingback: Symantec Corporation: Advertising Ghost to …ghosts, er, spamtraps » MainSleaze