Thanks for replying even though you don't reply.Michael J R White wrote: John Upham and Adam Raoof are both associates of the ECF...
or are mute points
Yet again it is Carl by the way we could at least try to remain politeMichael J R White wrote:Hibbard has muzzled the language which would be appropriate to respond to you here with.
Sorry, don't check the ECF Forum every day - if only I could spare the time. I'm just SO busy with organising the Stooge Annual Get-Away Funday/Picnic though.Michael J R White wrote:Oh wait, you were over two weeks behind the initial debate.Nick Murphy wrote:I missed the sarcasm in Adams comment, perhaps that is my failing. Though I would suggest sarcasm is the only reasonable response if you infer "something else at work" from an unsolicited email about a chess tournament.Michael J R White wrote:As someone who is not a member of the ECF and someone who didn't sign up to a new membership list, this is the quickest route to mediating the situation, without having to resort to legal action.
Adam Raoof's sacrcastic opening line in this thread hints there is something else at work with his approach, and I want no part of it.
Though maybe you ARE onto something - have you noticed that Adam never holds tournaments in a church? And that no jedi ever come to his tournaments? And that he screams when you splash him with holy water??
Oh wait, I DO get sarcasm!
Hibbard has muzzled the language which would be appropriate to respond to you here with.
I made the point earlier in this post that Adam Raoof has broken opt out laws, which could be taken up with the ICO. Is there something you and other stooges of his don't understand? Or would you like me to go ahead and pursue an FOI against Raoof?
If I am sent an email, containing a list of addresses in the To field, I can hit reply all, select this list (from the CC field), copy it, then paste it into the BCC field. It is a pretty trivial thing to do. I can also edit the title (subject) and body of the email.Michael J R White wrote:Raoof has made you misunderstand Simon Brown. The email he sent, using bcc functionality, did not have Re: at the start of it, neither did it have the original recipients, which would have been present if he had only hit Reply All.
It's very easy to send junk mail, not so easy to avoid loss of your email/ISP account etc.IanDavis wrote:If I am sent an email, containing a list of addresses in the To field, I can hit reply all, select this list (from the CC field), copy it, then paste it into the BCC field. It is a pretty trivial thing to do. I can also edit the title (subject) and body of the email.Michael J R White wrote:Raoof has made you misunderstand Simon Brown. The email he sent, using bcc functionality, did not have Re: at the start of it, neither did it have the original recipients, which would have been present if he had only hit Reply All.
As a taxpayer I would be very grateful if you did not report Adam, but rather allowed the ICO to get on with the much more pressing job of chasing people who, according to the ICO, are "responsible for distributing millions of spam texts" intended to deceive people into paying for services they don't need, rather than a few dozen emails with the slightly less harmful intent of persuading people to play in a chess tournament.Michael J R White wrote:In light of the way this thread has evolved, with no full and frank apology occurring, but for further abuse from supporters of Adam Raoof (John Upham, Nick Murphy, etc), my aim is to report Adam Raoof to the ICO, when I have time to do so.
Congratulations, as someone who reads but never complains about spam email you are very nearly an ideal recipient.Andrew Bak wrote:If I receive an email I don't want, I click "delete" or "spam".
Then I get on with my life.
I don't know Adam Raoof but honestly it seems like you are trying to make a trivial matter into something more than it is simply because you don't like him. Even if you feel you have a valid complaint it could surely have been resolved amicably but you have displayed nothing but hostility towards Adam and anyone not sharing your view from the start.Michael J R White wrote:@Paul,
I suggested a constructive way that Adam Raoof could proceed.
Secondly have you considered how someone like you or me gets onto spammers or fraudsters lists? I've been told that it's not so much the larger organisations, who are mostly regulation aware, but the little man or the smaller organisations at the bottom, who cause a mushrooming number of email addresses to fall into the wrong hands.
This being so, the ICO can tackle spammers on more than one front.
Does anyone else want to leap to Adam Raoof's defense, or should it be left for him to do something?
I think this is helpful.Michael J R White wrote:Adam Raoof has broken the laws around spamming and has aggressively marketed his product.
I've been asserting my rights, stating that I don't want him to use my email to send me details of his tournaments.
Information Commissioner's Office wrote:How do I stop unsolicited marketing emails?
If the email is from an identifiable UK source, reply to it with an opt-out request, and keep a copy. If you have already done so and you are still getting emails from that identifiable UK source, make a complaint to us.
My point is simply that Adam's explanation of simply hitting reply-all seems fairly reasonable. I mean, granted, there are the tiny steps in the middle of some cutting and pasting, but nothing that isn't trivial. So it was just a basic technical explanation.Bill Porter wrote:It's very easy to send junk mail, not so easy to avoid loss of your email/ISP account etc.IanDavis wrote:If I am sent an email, containing a list of addresses in the To field, I can hit reply all, select this list (from the CC field), copy it, then paste it into the BCC field. It is a pretty trivial thing to do. I can also edit the title (subject) and body of the email.Michael J R White wrote:Raoof has made you misunderstand Simon Brown. The email he sent, using bcc functionality, did not have Re: at the start of it, neither did it have the original recipients, which would have been present if he had only hit Reply All.
What point are you making here?
What would be the "right fashion" in your eyes?Michael J R White wrote: Adam Raoof refuses to communicate in the right fashion.
Loon pants?John Upham wrote:What would be the "right fashion" in your eyes?Michael J R White wrote: Adam Raoof refuses to communicate in the right fashion.
OK, that's clarified my understanding.IanDavis wrote:My point is simply that Adam's explanation of simply hitting reply-all seems fairly reasonable. I mean, granted, there are the tiny steps in the middle of some cutting and pasting, but nothing that isn't trivial. So it was just a basic technical explanation.
I am happy that you now understand the technical correction I offered to Michael White. Nowhere in this topic have I attempted to make a judgement on the rights and wrongs of the affair.Bill Porter wrote:OK, that's clarified my understanding.IanDavis wrote:My point is simply that Adam's explanation of simply hitting reply-all seems fairly reasonable. I mean, granted, there are the tiny steps in the middle of some cutting and pasting, but nothing that isn't trivial. So it was just a basic technical explanation.
Adam never sends out spam except when someone sends him emails with names and addresses of other recipients.
The spam emails are entirely the responsibility of the person who gave him access to these addresses.
