SPAM SPAM SPAM NIKON Model 100 ??? Your Responses Requested.

I have been getting an alert I did not ask for about a nikon medel

100, I wrote back sayibg I wanted no more laerts and certainly not

about a 35mm camera. Notwithstanding my request this alert continues

to be sent and I guess willl continue to be sent. I want it to stop.

 

Is this what we are to expect from photo net??????

 

I thought this was a large format board for us to exchange help, but

now it is turning into just another source of spam.

 

Are you receiving this too????

That's what I thought too...

 

<<I thought this was a large format board for us to exchange help>>

Ed, 90% of the funds for this site come from affiliates like Ritz, and most of that comes from the revenue that the affiliates share with us when photo.net members click through from our site to purchase something. The introduction of a new camera is the time when a lot of people do this.

 

The alert you are receiving is not a Nikon alert. It is the alert you signed up for -- a weekly message with all the new postings on the LF forum. (Perhaps you did this on LUSENET and we moved the alert request with you.) There is a 3 line ad in this message, followed by all the postings in the LF froum for a weeks. The ads are not forum-specific, and there is only one of them at any point in time. Usually there is no ad.

 

If you no longer wish to have a weekly recap of the forum messages, you can turn it off, just as you turned it on. The alert itself includes a URL for doing this. If you tried it and it is broken, I will investigate the problem and fix it. If, instead of clicking that link you replied, then your message went back to an address that is used only as the FROM address for alerts. Since it is the mailbox that receives all the bounced alerts, it is not read by a person.

 

You can also disable the alert by clicking "Email ALerts" at the top of the forum.

Just as an aside, I've always read that you should never, ever respond to spam in any way, especially not to those statements you see to the effect that "if you don't want future messages, let us know" or words like that. Responding to spam just confirms to the spammer that he's got a "live" e mail address. Apparently "live" e mail address lists can be sold for more money, so the spammer really likes it when you respond. Anyone else know more about this?

Yes, I'm afraid this *is* what you will come to expect from photo.net - it is a commercial enterprise and has to pay its overheads somehow. It's a case of putting up with it I'm afraid, at least until such time as the guys working on alternative software finish it and the option arises to move to a non-commercial server.

 

As for not replying to spam - I agree with that for the reasons given. Part of my job is to maintain our company email servers and I would estimate that at least 50% of spam gets bounced by our servers as undeliverable 'cos it is addressed to people who have left, often years ago. The fact you did not confirm your existence will not stop them sending the spam anyway so you may as well try to "un-subscribe" unless it is an obvious scam (pyramid or chain-letter or "want to make a million in your spare time" type of nonsense) in which case you are definately wasting your time. Some spam comes from otherwise legitimate companies who should know better in which case it is worth un-subscribing (and complaining bitterly to their "postmaster@" and "sales@" addresses and to "abuse@THEIR_ISP.COM" if you can work out who their ISP is.

 

The simplest ruse is to use tempory email addresses that you only use online, reserving your long-term, fixed address, for friends and family use only (and tell them not use your email address to send you online "greetings cards" and other such email address harvesting sites). That way, once the amount of spam hitting that address gets too irritating, just stop using that mail account and open another one. Some ISPs let you create several email addesses online with your account - the same trick can be used there, just kill the account that gets too much spam and create a new one.

 

Cheers,

Bob, even if photo.net weren't a commercial enterprise, it would have to pay its overheads. For example, if it were a non-profit like a public television station, it would need to nag people all the time to make their contributions and/or include messages from "underwriters".

 

Actually, photo.net has less of this than almost any commercial site I know of, and less than a lot of "non-profit" sites.