Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Computer Security (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f38-computer-security.html)
-   -   ZeroSpyware Enterprise Evaluation (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t307639-zerospyware-enterprise-evaluation.html)

zerospyware_enterprise@yahoo.com 03-22-2006 09:13 AM

ZeroSpyware Enterprise Evaluation
 
Hi,

I work for FBM Software, and we have just released the enterprise
version of ZeroSpyware. If you would like a free 30 day evaluation, go
to:

http://www.fbmsoftware.com/registrat...d~9192591.html

Sorry for the spam, but thought some people might be interested.


Thanks,
FBM


optikl 03-22-2006 12:01 PM

Re: ZeroSpyware Enterprise Evaluation
 
zerospyware_enterprise@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Sorry for the spam, but thought some people might be interested.
>
>


You can't just say "sorry for the Spam" and expect to be forgiven. It
doesn't work that way. Although, this is probably borderline Spam, go
pay for your advertising.

Moe Trin 03-22-2006 08:01 PM

Re: ZeroSpyware Enterprise Evaluation
 
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<krOdnfH_RaktobzZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com>, optikl wrote:

>> Sorry for the spam, but thought some people might be interested.


>You can't just say "sorry for the Spam" and expect to be forgiven. It
>doesn't work that way. Although, this is probably borderline Spam, go
>pay for your advertising.


If you are going to respond to spammers, always look at the headers. In
this case, the spammer also hit (at least) comp.security.firewalls and
comp.security.misc using google.groups from a b0rked DSL box in
Mandaluyong City in the Philippines. Given that the spamvertised domain
is registered in Las Vegas, Nevada, is hosted on a provider who has
demonstrated a preference for spammers and the URL seems to have a referral
ID, this is a good reason to avoid the products of that company.

I always find it funny that the spammers flogging something that claims
to be a security product do so by abusing unprotected systems elsewhere.
And then, they never see anything ironic in doing so, and may be so st00pid
as to defend the method as being a normal business practice. I suppose
that for them, it is.

Old guy

zerospyware_enterprise@yahoo.com 03-23-2006 03:24 AM

Re: ZeroSpyware Enterprise Evaluation
 
I apologize for breaking the rules regarding posting. I am fairly new
to newsgroups, and unfamiliar with established practices. I posted this
announcement only in newsgroups that I thought would touch on security
issues, because I thought it could be of interest to people who would
frequent these groups.

Over half of the company is based in Manila - hence the Philippine IP
addrress. It is where I am working from. The company is registered in
Las Vegas, and has a small presence in San Francisco. I don't know who
our provider is, and how that is indicative of the quality of our
products.

We are a growing company and have allocated much of our resources on
product development and customer support. I do not have the budget to
buy ads or fly around the world to shake hands. This was simply an
attempt to inform of a new product release to the people who might
actually have an interest in it. I do appreciate the irony of my
actions, but it was one of the few areas I could think to go with my
constrained budget.

Again, I am sorry for not posting this message in an appropriate
manner.


optikl 03-23-2006 04:32 AM

Re: ZeroSpyware Enterprise Evaluation
 
zerospyware_enterprise@yahoo.com wrote:

> We are a growing company and have allocated much of our resources on
> product development and customer support. I do not have the budget to
> buy ads or fly around the world to shake hands. This was simply an
> attempt to inform of a new product release to the people who might
> actually have an interest in it. I do appreciate the irony of my
> actions, but it was one of the few areas I could think to go with my
> constrained budget.
>


You think yours is the only business that has budget constraints?

zerospyware_enterprise@yahoo.com 03-23-2006 04:40 AM

Re: ZeroSpyware Enterprise Evaluation
 
Nope. But I do think it is acceptable to post a relevant post about a
new product in a handful of groups that focus on issues relevant to
that product.

To be honest, the "sorry about the spam" comment was more of a courtesy
than an indication of guilt.


Borked Pseudo Mailed 03-23-2006 11:40 AM

Re: ZeroSpyware Enterprise Evaluation
 
zerospyware_enterprise wrote:

> I apologize for breaking the rules regarding posting. I am fairly new to
> newsgroups, and unfamiliar with established practices. I posted this
> announcement only in newsgroups that I thought would touch on security
> issues, because I thought it could be of interest to people who would
> frequent these groups.


First of all I don't know where you posted to or how many copies you sent.
I just saw one post in this group. A couple lines and a link. If you
plastered it across the whole of Usenet I couldn't say and don't care
enough to look, but giving you the benefit of the doubt I'll assume you
only posted to privacy/virus/etc type groups.

Unless one of those groups has a charter specifically calling out no
commercial posts (alt.computer.security does not) it's generally deemed
acceptable for people to post *VERY* infrequent announcements of new or
improved products.

Assuming the above, in my opinion based on decades of Usenet participation
you haven't done one thing wrong and the people who are whining are just
doing so to hear see themselves whine. Do yourself two favors... don't
call your single posts SPAM because they're not, and tell people who snipe
at you for posting *VERY* infrequent announcements to bugger off.

Infrequency of course, being the key here... ;)

optikl 03-23-2006 01:11 PM

Re: ZeroSpyware Enterprise Evaluation
 
zerospyware_enterprise@yahoo.com wrote:
> Nope. But I do think it is acceptable to post a relevant post about a
> new product in a handful of groups that focus on issues relevant to
> that product.
>
> To be honest, the "sorry about the spam" comment was more of a courtesy
> than an indication of guilt.
>

You are probably very wrong.

Sean Heeger 03-23-2006 06:09 PM

Re: ZeroSpyware Enterprise Evaluation
 
zerospyware_enterprise@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I work for FBM Software, and we have just released the enterprise
> version of ZeroSpyware. If you would like a free 30 day evaluation, go
> to:
>
> http://www.fbmsoftware.com/registrat...d~9192591.html
>
> Sorry for the spam, but thought some people might be interested.
>
>
> Thanks,
> FBM
>


What works is saying something like "Does anyone have an opinion of this
software? Has anyone else ever heard of it or tired it? I did and I
think it's great."

It sucks having to get permission to say "hi" to someone online these
days as well.

Moe Trin 03-23-2006 07:54 PM

Re: ZeroSpyware Enterprise Evaluation
 
On 22 Mar 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<1143084257.030436.63390@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
zerospyware_enterprise@yahoo.com wrote:

>I apologize for breaking the rules regarding posting. I am fairly new
>to newsgroups, and unfamiliar with established practices.


You certainly managed to do some rather stupid things to convince people
to avoid your company. Here's the first free clue:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0000.txt
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc0000.html
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc0000.txt
http://www.ccd.bnl.gov/network/general/rfc0000.html
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/htbin/rfc/rfc0000.html

Don't use those URLs yet - they are templates. From the first one, grab
the index file (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc-index.txt) but be aware it's
large. Then grab RFC1855 by replacing the four zeros in the URLs above
with 1855 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt).

1855 Netiquette Guidelines. S. Hambridge. October 1995. (Format:
TXT=46185 bytes) (Also FYI0028) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

Next, learn to NOT post using google groups, as the poor user interface
makes you look like a 12 year old fool.

Next, don't use "throw-away" mail accounts. You claim to be posting for
some slipshod company - POST USING THEIR DOMAIN.

People claim that RFC1855 is out-dated. None the less, had you followed the
recommendations in it, you'd discover these things called newsgroup charters
and that your advertisement isn't acceptable.

3098 How to Advertise Responsibly Using E-Mail and Newsgroups or - how
NOT to $$$$$ MAKE ENEMIES FAST! $$$$$. T. Gavin, D. Eastlake 3rd, S.
Hambridge. April 2001. (Format: TXT=64687 bytes) (Also FYI0038)
(Status: INFORMATIONAL)

Yes, you correctly identified your posting as spam. So here's another RFC

2635 DON'T SPEW A Set of Guidelines for Mass Unsolicited Mailings and
Postings (spam*). S. Hambridge, A. Lunde. June 1999. (Format:
TXT=44669 bytes) (Also FYI0035) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

>I posted this announcement only in newsgroups that I thought would touch
>on security issues, because I thought it could be of interest to people
>who would frequent these groups.


That comes from your inexperience. Advertisements are not welcomed in
technical discussion groups, and are usually specifically banned by the
group charter. They often have a negative effect - making it know that
yours is a company and/or product to avoid. Here's another clue:

[compton ~]$ grep -c announce ../big.8.list.03.15.06
76
[compton ~]$ grep announce ../big.8.list.03.15.06 | grep -c Moderated
68
[compton ~]$ grep announce ../big.8.list.03.15.06 | grep -c '^comp'
47
[compton ~]$

On the 15th of every month, there is an article posted to the newsgroups
news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and news.lists.misc titled "List of
Big Eight Newsgroups". Among other things, it lists the title and a brief
description of those groups. There are 76 groups for announcements, 68 of
which are moderated (free posting, but controlled) and 47 of those are in
the 'comp.' hierarchy. I happen to subscribe to five of them and look there
for product announcements.

>Over half of the company is based in Manila - hence the Philippine IP
>addrress. It is where I am working from.


Your first post was from 203.177.124.109 - a "Corporate DSL" address with
Globe Telecom... that doesn't resolve. This post is from 58.69.220.6 -
another "Corporate DSL" in this case from the Philippine Long Distance
Telco (pldt.com.ph), and this one resolves to... 58.69.220.6.pldt.net
which really looks professional, doncha think?

>The company is registered in Las Vegas, and has a small presence in San
>Francisco. I don't know who our provider is, and how that is indicative
>of the quality of our products.


Rightly or wrongly, you are judged by the company you keep - which means
the companies you do business with, and how they appear. Finding out who
your provider is takes ten seconds for a DNS lookup and a whois query of
the result. Likewise, the domain lookup. As for the rest, spend a few
minutes searching the news.admin.net-abuse.* newsgroups.

>We are a growing company and have allocated much of our resources on
>product development and customer support.


Spend a little of that money on appearances. See that you post from
an IP address that _doesn't_ look like zombied cable boxes. Post using
a real address - to groups where the posts are welcomed. Both IP addresses
you posted from (which in itself looks bad) seem to be business grade
services if APNIC is to be believed, but neither bothers to give that
impression with hostnames. Indeed, the Globe Telecom looks even worse,
because the idiots don't know how to set up DNS.

>I do not have the budget to buy ads or fly around the world to shake
>hands. This was simply an attempt to inform of a new product release to
>the people who might actually have an interest in it. I do appreciate
>the irony of my actions, but it was one of the few areas I could think
>to go with my constrained budget.


Your post probably got you more negative attention - spamming does that,
as does posting advertisements to groups whose charters prohibit them.
Certainly there is little reason to consider your company has clue,
whether or not the product is worth anything or does anything useful.

Old guy


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.