Confessions of a G33k

Are you sure someone ELSE isn't doing this just to create controversy and tarnish Dean's image?

I'm sure Dean loves the fact that he is being disparaged on slashdot because of some lying spamhole. They do not allow unsolicited email.

Did you ask the Dean campaign for comment before publicizing this stuff? YOUR credibility is at issue.

Yup, the friend who forwarded the spam wrote the campaign an email last week, and has not gotten a reply as of this writing.

You can read his point of view about this on yaak.net.

Joy, you might want to add more prominence to the fact that the campaign admitted to partnering w/ said company, and quickly severed the relationship as soon as they were shown to be spammers. Poor decision to start the relationship in the first place? Yes. But it might be fair to not bury the ending...

Dana, it's my understanding that emailresults.net (the spam that spamertized.org dissected) and the eScriptions.net spam above are NOT RELATED. I suppose that they are the two vendors that Nicco referred to in his slashdot post, but he hasn't named the vendors as I write this. Additionally, Nicco said that the Dean campaign knew about spam being sent on their behalf on August 12th, while the spam discussed above are dated August 14th and 15th.

That being said, I'm watching the slashdot discussion like you are and I will happily post a "It's resolved" link once I'm sure of the identities of the two vendors.

Funny to see the Dean supporters slamming the facts. Get over it, admit it, and get on to something else. The Dean campaign's reputation for being "net-savvy" does not need to demonstrate "internet harrassment" as well.

"Tech Savvy" doesn't mean anybody in the Dean campaign knows anything about the nuts and bolts of how the internet works. They're end users for the most part, and are probably surprised that this is happening.

I'm a Dean supporter, and I'm disappointed in the spam thing, but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Don't disregard a good candidate who has really tried to serve the internet community that has built up around hs campaign because of something the campaign probably had nothing do to do with.

Are you guys serious? We're talking about a political scene in which an administration taking energy policy advice from Enron, lies about WMD, phony intelligence etc. leading the country into War is glossed over as business as usual in this cutthroat world. And your attacking a candidate for having at worst poor Internet etiquette?
Weird sense of priorities is all Ive got to say

OMG, you write someone on Friday that you know gets a ton of mail and post this material the same day without waiting, and expect a prompt response over the weekend? Are you for real?

I mean, at this point, why respond to you? He's better off waiting for reputable news media to pick up this story and give a response to them.

Bob, I think you answered your own question as to why no initial response from the Dean campaign. I too believe that unless mainstream media picks up the story, we won't be hearing much from the campaign.

Also, I don't believe for one second that my friend is the only person who saw this second type of spam (NOT from emailresults.net), so it was only a matter of time before *someone* asked those questions.

In a way, it's better for Dean that a lowly geek blogger asked first rather, than, say, the tech writers for the Washington Post or [insert your favorite mainstream news source here] or some non-informed political pundit who will spin it like a top.

Something to note. Everything I've posted about the subject have been undeniable facts. In both posts, I've included the headers, the underlying HTML source and the spam. Go and take a look at the (immediate) senders yourself.

At this point, I still believe that the email referenced above has nothing to do with emailresults.net (the dates on the spam referenced above are 8/14 & 8/15 while the Dean campaign apparently stopped dealing with their unnamed vendors on 8/12), and that's why I raised the question about the origination of the spam to Slashdot.

So, personally, I was glad to see someone from the Dean campaign post on the Slashdot thread. The posting didn't answer all of my questions, but at least it was a start.

I got spammed from dean too.

From: DeanforAmerica.com
Subject: [SPAM] Presidential Candidate Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=9.3 required=5.0
tests=ACT_NOW,BIG_FONT,CLICK_BELOW,CTYPE_JUST_HTML,DEAR_FRIEND,
DEAR_SOMEBODY,EXCUSE_3,EXCUSE_7,HTML_COMMENT_UNIQUE_ID,
NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP,RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM,SPAM_PHRASE_05_08,
US_DOLLARS_4,WEB_BUGS,X_OSIRU_SPAM_SRC
version=2.44
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Level: *********
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.44 (1.115.2.24-2003-01-30-exp)
X-Spam-Prev-Content-Type: text/html
Status:

SPAM: -------------------- Start SpamAssassin results ----------------------
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content analysis details: (9.30 hits, 5 required)
SPAM: US_DOLLARS_4 (0.4 points) BODY: Nigerian scam key phrase ($NNN.N m/USDNNN.N m/US$NN.N m)
SPAM: EXCUSE_3 (0.4 points) BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list
SPAM: EXCUSE_7 (0.4 points) BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list
SPAM: DEAR_FRIEND (0.4 points) BODY: How dear can you be if you don't know my name?
SPAM: CLICK_BELOW (0.3 points) BODY: Asks you to click below
SPAM: ACT_NOW (0.3 points) BODY: Act Now! Don't Hesitate!
SPAM: DEAR_SOMEBODY (0.1 points) BODY: Contains 'Dear Somebody'
SPAM: SPAM_PHRASE_05_08 (1.6 points) BODY: Spam phrases score is 05 to 08 (medium)
SPAM: [score: 5]
SPAM: BIG_FONT (0.3 points) BODY: FONT Size +2 and up or 3 and up
SPAM: WEB_BUGS (0.2 points) BODY: Image tag with an ID code to identify you
SPAM: HTML_COMMENT_UNIQUE_ID (0.1 points) BODY: Contains a comment with nothing but unique ID
SPAM: NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP (1.3 points) URI: Uses a dotted-decimal IP address in URL
SPAM: RCVD_IN_OSIRUSOFT_COM (0.4 points) RBL: Received via a relay in relays.osirusoft.com
SPAM: [RBL check: found 154.69.254.208.relays.osirusoft.com., type: 127.0.0.4]
SPAM: X_OSIRU_SPAM_SRC (2.7 points) RBL: DNSBL: sender is Confirmed Spam Source
SPAM: CTYPE_JUST_HTML (0.4 points) HTML-only mail, with no text version
SPAM:
SPAM: -------------------- End of SpamAssassin results ---------------------

d, you don't possibly have access to the full headers on that email message?

It would be interesting to know the date sent and wether or not it was sent after 8/12/03.

The following is what comes on REAL DFA emails.

>>>>>>>>>

Paid for and maintained by DEAN FOR AMERICA
Contributions to Dean For America are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes

>>>>>>>>>

IF it were really from the campaign I am sure they wouldn't change this, because this is what the FEC requires.

It would not be hard for the Republicans, or DLC or DNC to pay a Spam company to spam in his name so as to slander the "Internet" Campaign in the worst way you could.

I doubt very highly this is a real DFA email. To me it has all the signs of being a spoof. Just like the fake PayPal emails, Ebay emails, etc... that have a few real links to the real webiste intermixed with thier own false links.

Charles Goin

Charles, that is an interesting point. I just re-checked the spamvertized analysis of the emailresults.net spam and couldn't find that statement on that spam either.

On the spam that I posted, on the bottom there is a "Paid for by Dean for America" statement but not what you quoted.

Any word from the Dean people on wether or not the two unnamed marketing vendors they did partner with used that particular language in the disclaimer?

joy, my mistake - I did not realize that there were 2 separate incidents. I haven't seen the responses in the slashdot comments that you mentioned, so I guess I'll be waiting for something more official.

I just wanted to note that an unofficial explanation of the spam was posted at Dean2004.blogspot.com.

Hi guys, I am the CEO of EmailResults.net. Ya, no kidding. I founded the opt-in business in 1997 by working with teams of intelligent people like yourselves who also hated spam but knew their could be a legitimate industry for relevant marketing content based on individuals true interests. I can tell you we do not run and hide with fake headers, hijack mail servers or deliver irrelevent "get rich quick scams" or porno crap.

We are and were one of the two vendors Dean recruited. However, the error that Dean made was to use any company sourced out of Boca Raton for email marketing. They all use the Naviant untargeted list of 100 million email names harvested in 1998 by eDirect.

I formed an alliance with Jim Nitchels, one of the original founders of CAUCE (now deceased) in 1997 to create the industry. Walt Rines (brother and Sanford Wallace) was also involved but were two conceited people who did not care about real relevence in email marketing and did not want to pay a penny to network admins like yourselves who were and are trying to protect individual rights of privacy and keep your networks up and running. I took the time to understand the real issues by listening to the sys admins and create and industry that once again is being pissed on by greedy people.

The premise of "opt-in" email marketing as defined by the spam advocy groups and myself at the time was about:

1) Delivering relevant content to individuals who have stated an interest in a product or service
2) Have given true consent to receive messages
3) Paying the networks for bearing the burden of legitimate marketing messages.
4) Parterning with such companies to receive the demographic and interest points of each subscriber then sending a confirmation to the subscriber confirming relevant interests BEFORE marketing piece one went out.

I have three of four legitimate competitors who still actually conform with such standards. However, the other hundreds who have a website and sell email marketing, do not adhere to such practices. Therefore, companies and politicians alike invariably make the wrong choices and recruit companies which are completely shady. It's a shame and a learning experience for Dean no doubt, who is a good man trying to tackle some tough issues.

I invite additional posts, direct dialogue and your feedback as I have recently become involved with again trying to tackle the problem of defining to the nation what legitimate email content is vs. spamming. If we want a true solution, it will be those of us that run the networks and Internet and gets it done together as it happened in 1997.

I can tell you the biggest challenge I have seen to change the industry. It is the attitude of big business who feel they do not have to pay delivery services to send legitimate email content over the networks. I find this baffling as TV advertisers pay ABC, NBC, MTV and other major netowrks to deliver the message over the air. Same with radio. Direct postal gets delivered over the US Postal Service who is getting paid to do this. Why do we not have any real action happening about really killing spam and defining legitimate newsletter, marketing content? Greed from big business. This should change and can change but requires an alliance similar to the one I spoke about in 1997. The true solution of killing spam is to bring big business and the major netorks together which I helped facilitate in 1997. There are plenty of technical solutions to monitor and filter junk mail vs. legitimate email content. However, you can use the drastic technology measures until big business and the networks decide what relevant content is vs. spamming. It is the definition that is lacking.

Good luck to you all. Figured I would lend my two cents into this discussion.

Best Regards,

Jason C. Rines
CEO
EmailResults.net

Dean, the "Internet Candidate"? Yeah, right. He'd know everyone HATES spammers.

And then he tries to blame the contractors...hmm, considering this is the second time he's been caught, I doubt it.

You don't just accidently hire a spamming company as your consultants.

Dean campaign admits to using spam
http://www.msnbc.com/news/954100.asp?0dm=C24EN

Cogentco is not a blatant spamhaus.

They're a rather big network provider, who have a serious spam problem.

Those two things are not the same.

A mere association to a network provider with a spam problem, does not a spammer make.

Jason Rines, known spammer, CEO of a known spamhouse, brother to notorious spammer Walt "Picklejar" Rines, friend of former king of spam Sanford "Spamford" Wallace, writes that
he founded Opt In.

Yeah, and I invented the internet.

Sorry, but he's a slimeball spammer, with slimeball friends, and anyone who googles will find that emailresults.net has a long history of sending spam. Knowing how Spamford and Picklejar worked, I suspect Jason owns pieces of most of those Boca Ratan spamhouses that he says you shouldn't use.

You anti-spam purists frighten me. On an almost monthly basis I recieve unsolicited phone calls and home visits from various environmental, workers, childrens and oppressed/disadvantaged peoples advocacy groups, they are on a shake down mission. The causes they represent need money to fulfill their goals. Long term experience shows that "gettting in the faces" of people yields the biggest results. Many are pissed off at the tactics and don't donate.

Since a much larger percentage of their contacts don't donate because they simply don't want to and offer reasons like, "I gave at the office", "I just lost my job" or "I give to another better managed organization", they don't care about the people who say they don't give because they don't like the unsolicited in your face tactics, they simply write them off as more mud on the tires.

The same will become true of this anti political spam tirade I'm sure, if the spamming works (meaning it expands the political/financial base of the candidate employing it) the anti spam snobs will simply be whiners that must be smiled at and apologized to as they continue to employ whatever tactics get the best most cost effective results.