Emails from domainers selling crap names

[biggie]

i thought it would be real nice to share some of the emails i receive from fellow domainers trying to sell their crappy names.

hopefully, some of you will read these and stop sending or see the mistakes they make so you won't make them too.

here is one from Andrew Brad, and if he is a member here...he's a clown! why? because he included every other email address he sent this mail to. thus one could harvest his list and spam them too.

To whom it may concern,



The premium generic aged domain FREDLOYAINSURANCE.NET is up for sale and I am emailing several parties that have registered similar domains OR use "[fredloya], [fredloya insurance], [loya insurance], [fred loya claims], [fredloya locations] etc." as keywords in their advertising campaigns.This is a 6-year old domain, with no drops since it was registered in 2006.



According to the Google Traffic Estimator the keywords ‘Fredloya Insurance’ receive over 40,500 searches every month, thus making this a high SEO premium domain worth thousands of dollars.



Right now, the asking price for FredLoyaInsurance.net is just $250, and is available on a first-come-first-served basis. Yes, you read it right, $250 ONLY.



This is a great opportunity to acquire a great domain at a throw-away price. If you have any questions don't hesitate to send me an email or call me directly at +91. 939-2774-412.



All transactions will held either via Paypal or via the secure services of Escrow.com.



Best regards,



Andrew Brad


Domain Broker, FredloyaInsurance.net

+91. 939-2774-412

if any of you receive such emails, feel free to post them so we can expose the spammers.

Thanks

 

[Havela]

I think it would be beneficial to establish a legal definition of spam. I linked to the relevant section of the SPAM-Can above, but to summarise:

A spam email must be

1) Commercial
2) Mass
3) Untargeted

Re. 1) There is a long and boring definition of that too, but it boils down to the fact that if the recipient believes you are trying to sell them something, the email is commercial.

Re. 2) Mass. To get a grip of that word it is important to look at the intentions behind the spam act. Internet opened up for a level of commercial solicitation that had never been experienced before. Automated features are able to send out thousands and thousands of emails per hours. That is the type of activity the spam acts are implemented to prevent. A person who manually retrieves the email address of 20 recipients from a whois lookup is not a spammer. Both the SPAM-Can and the terms quoted above refer to “mass automated harvesting”, i.e. bot harvesting – not the act of looking up an email in a whois registry in general.

Re. 3) "Untargeted" means that you have received a random email unrelated to yourself and your business. If the sender has selected you because your domain name is similar to the domain he is pushing, this cannot be classified as spam because it is targeted.

Secondly, domain name quality does not factor into whether an email is spam or not.

Based on this definition, I agree with Scandiman's quote above. Yes, mass emailing is illegal, no doubt. However, using a whois email addy for personal, targeted solicitation does not fall within this definition.

Which ones ?


If the E-mail really had an opening line like:

"Dear malwareshield.com,"

1. it's a telltale sign the info was grabbed from whois and not reviewed by a human or personalized in any way => SPAM
2. the same piece of spam was sent to multiple recipients, not just one - so it's loosely targeted at best => SPAM
3. the spammer failed to check the recipient, and the spam was sent to somebody who is quite unlikely to buy, because he's not identified as a possible end user to begin with, it's extremely unlikely the spam could be welcome but I understand your personal tolerance level is higher => SPAM

I think this email is a good example. Yes, the header is not personalised, but the email definitely appears to be targeted. Moreover, the header directly relates to the content of the email message (which is a requirement) and the email is short, polite and to the point. I do not get a spam vibe from this at all. Fact is, nobody can be sure this is spam.

Personal information could be removed but I guess the purpose of this thread is not just to name and shame, it is also to educate newbies, and also to expose known sources of spam so that you can block them in advance. In fact I even thought about setting an autoresponder just for domain spammers :gl:

That is a valid point and I agree. I just wish the personal info would be removed.

I don't think what you are concerned about is "privacy", but having the name and ip address displayed in such a thread as "domainers selling crap names".

It's not a very flattering statement, but I find that it is factual.

Actually, that is not factual. I have been a blogger for many years and being the webmaster of my own blog I came across privacy issues at an early stage. In my country displaying someone's IP and other personal info without their permission is not allowed and might cause the webhost to take down the blog. A good example is a famous female blogger who displayed the IP address of a man who had sexually harrassed her for some time. She was reported to the police for doing it and had to remove the IP... The awareness of privacy issues is increasing everywhere, and there has recently been a heated debate in Europe about a controversial EU directive about storage of personal browsing information. I am very interested in these issues, not least the legal perspective. With the Internet, privacy can be abused so much it is important to set high standards.

Having said that, I'll admit that I also value my own privacy highly and would not have liked to have my name associated with such a thread. Would any of you? I have experienced to be googled on a large screen during a job interview and had to go through the various entries with the head interviewer. "scam...spam...my name" would not look so good. Enough about me, though.

The bottom line is: Displaying someone's personal info without their permission is illegal and (most likely) against this webhost's T&C.

I'm not saying that this thread does not serve a good purpose, because I see the point about educating newbies (like myself) and I have learned from it, but I would have liked to see some more caution regarding the display of personal information.

Added: (Just for clarity) I am not against displaying information about known scammers and I have done so myself here on Namepros (and they use fake information anyway). But I believe there is a good chance that Mr Goodman's personal info is genuine.

 

[Archangel]

Abusing a domain whois database is illegal. These spammers are doing just that. Not to sound mean but you have no place to lecture about the legalities of posting spammer info in this thread, especially when they are breaking laws, not us.

Mods, I am slightly concerned about the level of privacy violations in this thread. I don't mind so much where (real) scammers and spammers are concerned, but way too much information is given out about "normal" people here.

 

[Havela]

Not to sound mean but you have no place to lecture about the legalities of posting spammer info in this thread

How do you sound when you try to be mean? :D

Joking aside, sorry if I came across as lecturing.

@ Sdsinc and alien, I enjoyed our discussion and have nothing but respect for you both, having read your postings on the forum for a while.

 

[alien51]

I agree with your personal privacy issues.

In fact, i'm sure people would have the same issues about posting the real names of Godaddy or Namecheap employees whom they have an argument over the phone.

Privacy policies would have to be administered by the website operator or the webhost. But when it comes to "individuals" you are dealing with, especially when you are coming in as unsolicited, then you are effectively handing over your personal information to a third party without any contractual obligation on how your personal information would be used. Like i've said earlier, that's YOUR RISK as a salesman.

So to translate that into the current situation, Namepros "can" remove personal information according to this site's privacy policies, but your personal information (name and IP address) are still in the possession of the individual you contacted thru unsolicited mail. And he could still use your personal info somewhere else. You have NO contractual obligation with that guy on how your personal info should be used. You showed your cards to him, when you barged in to his door unsolicited. If there's a law which you believe prevents annoyed people from disclosing your info in public, then you can always sue of course.

 

[Havela]

I agree with your personal privacy issues.

In fact, i'm sure people would have the same issues about posting the real names of Godaddy or Namecheap employees whom they have an argument over the phone.

Privacy policies would have to be administered by the website operator or the webhost. But when it comes to "individuals" you are dealing with, especially when you are coming in as unsolicited, then you are effectively handing over your personal information to a third party without any contractual obligation on how your personal information would be used. Like i've said earlier, that's YOUR RISK as a salesman.

So to translate that into the current situation, Namepros "can" remove personal information according to this site's privacy policies, but your personal information (name and IP address) are still in the possession of the individual you contacted thru unsolicited mail. And he could still use your personal info somewhere else. You have NO contractual obligation with that guy on how your personal info should be used. You showed your cards to him, when you barged in to his door unsolicited. If there's a law which you believe prevents annoyed people from disclosing your info in public, then you can always sue of course.

Point taken and agreed. However, I hope broaching the issue may contribute to raise awareness.

 

[sky]

Whatever the semantics of SPAM are, it comes down to - most people consider their inbox their space and their property and don't want a bunch of bogus annoying marketing flooding it, because it means more work and hassle for them. Anyone who barges in trying to peddle a product risks annoying people. That's 'bad karma' from my perspective. Not so bad that it can't be mitigated in various ways or completely offset by other actions, but it is at least a somewhat abrasive aspect of door-to-door, er, I mean e-mail to e-mail domain name marketing, and it's up to every domainer that does that to recognize at least that much and decide how much harassment and shaking of the tree they're willing to do and can feel good about themselves in doing, just to make a buck.

 

[Archangel]

Oh, when I'm mean, you'll know it

How do you sound when you try to be mean? :D

 

[ecalc]

A spam email must be

1) Commercial
2) Mass
3) Untargeted

Merrian Webster defines spam as "unsolicited usually commercial email sent to a large number of addresses". The FCC defines spam as "unsolicited e-mail and text messages"¹. The FTC defines spam as "unwanted commercial email"². I'm not a lexicographer, but the gummint sets the rules so I'll go with them on this one. No mass, no targeting. The acronym CAN-SPAM is derived from the full title 15 USC CHAPTER 103 - CONTROLLING THE ASSAULT OF NON-SOLICITED PORNOGRAPHY AND MARKETING. The act regulates commercial electronic mail messages and does not define or hinge on the word 'spam'. Congress was motivated by bulk spammers and that is where the US Sentencing Commission and DOJ rightly focus, but CAN-SPAM has no mass/bulk/quantity rule. 15 USC Sec. 7704 statute language consistently refers to singular email: "It is unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission, to
a protected computer, of a commercial electronic mail message …"³ CAN-SPAM also ignores target precision, instead addressing affirmative consent and opt out provisions. Bottom line - a sincere polite well written precisely targeted single email can easily violate CAN-SPAM rules, for example if the sender omits a valid physical postal address. One man's brilliant sales pitch is another man's spam, as welcome as a turd in a punch bowl.

¹ http://www.fcc.gov/topic/spam
² http://onguardonline.gov/articles/0038-spam/
³ http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C103.txt

 

[scandiman]

Bottom line - a sincere polite well written precisely targeted single email can easily violate CAN-SPAM rules, for example if the sender omits a valid physical postal address.

Some of the e-mails I get reference an address in Phoenix, I did some searching and it is a theater owned by the city, I contacted their management and they are investigating if anyone in their employ is involved in the spam. Chances are it's false information, which will put these messages into the fraud category and on the wrong side of fed law and possibly some laws in AZ as well.

 

[tonecas]

Abusing a domain whois database is illegal.

domaintools.com also has been abusing for years of the WHOIS system :gl:

the last spam reports I kind of like them! there are some good pitches and systems in place there. of course addressing the owner as "domain.tld" is spammy but I got some ideas now for my own emails. :hehe:

who ought to guess that it could be possible to find some useful things in this thread?

regards,
tonecas

 

[alien51]

To put things in the proper perspective, the title of this thread is about "domainers selling crap names".

So technically, it's not about spammers per se. Which means, even if you are a respected domainer with a reputable name, if you attempt to sell a "crap" name to somebody, you may find yourself getting nominated in this thread. lol

Think about it as the Razzie Award. Even some respected actors get a razzie for bad acting.

 

[Archangel]

Define "abusing." They merely allow one to search a whois. There is no harm in helping a person find a domain owner. What's "illegal" about that? I guess everyone on earth who runs a whois is a lawbreaker.

domaintools.com also has been abusing for years of the WHOIS system :gl:

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------

Damn it. "Catwoman" just got stuck in my head. lol

Think about it as the Razzie Award.

 

[Kate]

Define "abusing." They merely allow one to search a whois. There is no harm in helping a person find a domain owner. What's "illegal" about that? I guess everyone on earth who runs a whois is a lawbreaker.

They do more than that. Here is an excerpt of the TOS for .com whois:

By submitting a Whois query, you agree to abide
by the following terms of use: You agree that you may use this Data only
for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Data
to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone,
or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to VeriSign (or its computer systems). The compilation,
repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of VeriSign. You agree not to
use electronic processes that are automated and high-volume to access or
query the Whois database except as reasonably necessary to register
domain names or modify existing registrations.

Now could it be an accurate description of what Domaintools are doing ? I guess so.

On top of that they archive past records. Sometimes that can be useful to investigate theft, changes of ownership etc and in order to conduct due digiligence but Domaintools is a company, that like the Facebooks in this world, benefits from violating the privacy of others.

 

[tonecas]

Define "abusing." They merely allow one to search a whois. There is no harm in helping a person find a domain owner. What's "illegal" about that? I guess everyone on earth who runs a whois is a lawbreaker.

abusing = making frequent and recurrent WHOIS queries to WHOIS servers. how do you think you can get a DB with almost every domain registered across several TLDs? :gl:
sorry, but also bulk WHOIS access mechanisms permitted by registrars don't make it. :tri:
but hey, they don't even care about hiding that. if you have done a sufficient number of historical whois searches on their system you will find plenty of IP blocks from registrars that got registered in their DB across the years.

i find this thread very interesting. for once, you can find some good pitch ideas that are generally misused. and some good systems being put in place. most of all, you can get a notion that we are again in another top in this market. so many script kids, newbies and the likes, not to mention the unloading of portfolios that has been running for months spells a ton of insight.

on the other hand, i can't stop find it also amusing seeing people sometimes getting so offended with the spamming going on. what do you all think we are? good and respectable business persons that play it all by the rules? do you think that even sending one unsolicited email to one person is not spam? :lala:

don't get me wrong. the majority of the examples on this thread are pushing the envelope, to say the least, and most of all they bring bad karma to our industry - because when we send our (not spam) correctly built emails we will be running into bigger chances of hitting the spam folder or the delete button. so, it is all good to me to spread the word and the details of each "spammer". sorry, privacy is a no no here.:td:

and talking about privacy, do you know that a good number of spammers and "honest" domainers use fake information on the whois of their domains? what do you think of that? have you ever consider that by not *paying* for a privacy whois service you are making an unfair competition on other "honest" domainers/ business persons. and how about moving to enforce that registrars take action on fake whois and spam reports? I see a lot of talk from big domainers and "pros" but little action.

the problem is, there are too many commitments, inter-dependencies and votes of silent across all industry.

let us keep this thread up to the point. report them if they are persistent, annoying and badly target. and don't go into much philosophical debates. apologies also to those that only wait for people to come knocking on their door. :zzz:

regards,
tonecas

 

[Archangel]

Crap domain but sadly, it's one I owned/sold a long time ago. Why would I want this POS again? lol It was good for typo traffic, once upon a time.

Advance Domain Availability Notification:

We are writing to tell you that beasttubes.com will be listed for auction soon. This domain might be useful for you, since you own a domain similar to this domain.

To confirm interest in owning this domain, fill out the simple form here: beasttubes.com



Sincerely,Alexander
10000 North Central Expressway
Suite 400
Dallas, TX 75231

If you do not want more of these messages, please click the link above and follow instructions at the bottom of the page

The secret of success is constancy of purpose.

Sent from Alex, [email protected]

Spam him a few thousand times.

---------- Post added at 12:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------

There is no law that says you can't supply legal public info. Sorry.

abusing = making frequent and recurrent WHOIS queries to WHOIS servers. how do you think you can get a DB with almost every domain registered across several TLDs? :gl:
sorry, but also bulk WHOIS access mechanisms permitted by registrars don't make it. :tri:
but hey, they don't even care about hiding that. if you have done a sufficient number of historical whois searches on their system you will find plenty of IP blocks from registrars that got registered in their DB across the years.

 

[Kate]

From: Sujeewa Hemantha <[email protected]>
Subject: Cheap domains for sale

These domains for sale each $15. This is not an auction. FIRST come FIRST serve.

874874.COM $15
16-16.COM $15
36-36.COM $15
37-37.COM $15
42-42.COM $15
43-43.COM $15
47-47.COM $15
53-53.COM $15
57-57.COM $15
62-62.COM $15
63-63.COM $15
64-64.COM $15
65-65.COM $15
71-71.COM $15
72-72.COM $15
73-73.COM $15
74-74.COM $15
75-75.COM $15
79-79.COM $15
84-84.COM $15
94-94.COM $15
97-97.COM $15
DOMAIN222.COM $15
LovelyFilms.com $15
IndividualTutor.com $15
HaveANiceTour.com $15
GreatServing.com $15
DomainSolidarity.com $15
DomainPuff.com $15
TopPremierDomains.com $15
icann.me $15

 

[- me -]

Great name, but since we're talking about what defines spam -

If this isn't the poster child for spam, I don't know what is.
(I included all the emails in Copy To)

From [email protected]
Subject: Domain Name Draw.com

"Hello,


I am currently working as a co-broker for "Domain Holdings" and I represent the owner of domain name Draw.com.


Currently, owners of domain name Draw.com are looking for people who might be interested in buying their domain name.


Draw.com owners are waiting an offer for their domain name.


If Your company would be interested in buying this domain name, or You have any questions, please respond to my email.


Sorry for this email if Your company is not interested in buying Draw.com domain name.


Thank You,
Simonas."

Anybody care to count them?

500 email addresses removed.

 

[Kate]

Great name, but since we're talking about what defines spam -

If this isn't the poster child for spam, I don't know what is.
(I included all the emails in Copy To)

...

Anybody care to count them?

Ouch
That 'broker' should find another hobby.

I think you should remove the addresses of innocent parties so they don't picked up by bots, and receive more spam.

 

[ramrajesh]

beware of spams from hacking your account.........those things are really getting increased nowadays......

 

[bmugford]

Great name, but since we're talking about what defines spam -

If this isn't the poster child for spam, I don't know what is.
(I included all the emails in Copy To)

From [email protected]
Subject: Domain Name Draw.com

"Hello,


I am currently working as a co-broker for "Domain Holdings" and I represent the owner of domain name Draw.com.


Currently, owners of domain name Draw.com are looking for people who might be interested in buying their domain name.


Draw.com owners are waiting an offer for their domain name.


If Your company would be interested in buying this domain name, or You have any questions, please respond to my email.


Sorry for this email if Your company is not interested in buying Draw.com domain name.


Thank You,
Simonas."

Anybody care to count them?

I received the same email.

That "broker" needs to find another job.

Having a CC list viewable like that is ridiculous.

Brad

 

[johname]

I think you should remove the addresses of innocent parties so they don't picked up by bots, and receive more spam.

I agree! Mods should do it if me doesn't



At least Draw.com not a crappy name lol


\/ Still should be deleted! Its providing lazy spamers a list of new victims

 

[alien51]

I think you should remove the addresses of innocent parties so they don't picked up by bots

Too late for that. Bots these days are vicious predators. Post it now, and it gets picked up in about 3 minutes.

 

[johname]

anybody care to count them?

500

 

[Archangel]

Great domain. Terrible "sales approach."

As an aside, Alex sent me that exact same 'beast tubes' offer. This guy is embarrassing himself (though I think he might be too stupid to realize it).

Great name, but since we're talking about what defines spam -

If this isn't the poster child for spam, I don't know what is.

 

[- me -]

500

500!

I'll take your word for it.

Now I'll remove the list.

WOW, this "professional" broker sent the same email off to 500 people.

He should be horse whipped.