[179656] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: vendor spam OTD
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Mon Apr 27 23:19:47 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <868udd9cvx.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 08:49:40 +0530
To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Given we=E2=80=99re going down this =E2=80=9Cwhat is spam=E2=80=9D =
rathole again, spam is generally defined as unsolicited BULK email
As the email appears to be one to one, though a remarkably persistent =
one to one, I would suggest procmail, unless you know he=E2=80=99s =
harvested nanog and is sending the same offer mail merged to a bunch of =
operators.
=E2=80=94srs
> On 28-Apr-2015, at 8:29 am, Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
>=20
>> On 04/27/2015 07:02 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>>> Anyone else been spammed by Andy Boland at "Function5 Technology
>>> Group"?
>>=20
>> I'm not sure it's fair to class the e-mail as "spam", but he is one
>> persistent fellow. My company made list for some of the equipment we
>> retired for purchase, and his Cisco buyer never got back to me. So
>> the excess inventory is being offered to another reseller.
>=20
> Well, it's unsolicited email from a company who I've never had any
> commercial relationship with. If it's not fair to class it as spam,
> what is it fair to class it as?
>=20
> I reported it to the appropriate abuse folks.
