Comment On CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

In early 2004, John was living it up in Argentina at a startup working on a VCI product. For those unfamiliar with Value Chain Integration, in layman's terms it synergizes backward overflow while optimizing cardinal grammeters in addition to allowing customers to parabolize slithy toves at the least embiggoned cost possible. The software's development was handled in Argentina, though there were offices around the globe. They were just starting to pull together a real, live QA team to replace the last QA team (one guy in one of the US offices). They were happily building their software, expanding the team, burning through their VC capital, and entertaining dreams of a huge IPO. [expand full text]
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4Next »

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:14 • by James R. Twine (unregistered)
> in layman's terms it synergizes backward overflow while
> optimizing cardinal grammeters in addition to allowing
> customers to parabolize slithy toves at the least
> embiggoned cost possible.

Right -- gotcha!

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:16 • by akatherder
"They were happily building their software, expanding the team, burning through their VC capital,"

They must have withdrawn their VC capital by entering their PIN numbers into an ATM machine.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:16 • by FredSaw
It's tough to parabolize a slithy tove if it's gyring or gimbling in a wabe.

And, oh yeah... thrid!!!

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:17 • by Jon (unregistered)
The Real WTF: example.org is reserved for testing, so there's no situation where you should be randomly picking domains.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:17 • by Maarten (unregistered)
The real WTF is of course, that he didn't know of the .invalid TLD.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:18 • by Vechni
404 means that not only is that domain registered, but that a web-server is running...

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:19 • by Volmarias
I think this is the first recorded instance that the CAN SPAM act has actually done any good.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:19 • by Maarten (unregistered)
205409 in reply to 205402
akatherder:
"They were happily building their software, expanding the team, burning through their VC capital,"

They must have withdrawn their VC capital by entering their PIN numbers into an ATM machine.


Of course "VC capital" is short for "venture capitalists capital" so it's an entirely valid abbreviation.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:20 • by akatherder
205410 in reply to 205409
Maarten:
akatherder:
"They were happily building their software, expanding the team, burning through their VC capital,"

They must have withdrawn their VC capital by entering their PIN numbers into an ATM machine.


Of course "VC capital" is short for "venture capitalists capital" so it's an entirely valid abbreviation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC

And you lose points for not using "cromulent".

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:21 • by Leon (unregistered)
205411 in reply to 205402
"They must have withdrawn their VC capital by entering their PIN numbers into an ATM machine."

Probably used their VC capital to buy everyone new LCD displays and NIC cards.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:22 • by ozymandias (unregistered)
205413 in reply to 205404
Jon:
The Real WTF: example.org is reserved for testing, so there's no situation where you should be randomly picking domains.

The real bug is not that he entered a random domain name -- it is that the testers all failed to enter their real domain names while testing.

What did they all expect when they didn't use their real email addresses?

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:31 • by Quietust
205415 in reply to 205413
ozymandias:
Jon:
The Real WTF: example.org is reserved for testing, so there's no situation where you should be randomly picking domains.

The real bug is not that he entered a random domain name -- it is that the testers all failed to enter their real domain names while testing.

What did they all expect when they didn't use their real email addresses?


Sorry, you lose - the testers DID enter their real email addresses, but due to Fred having entered a bogus email address and filling up the queue with hundreds of thousands of messages (which were being delivered rather slowly due to the constantly crashing mail server at the other end), it was taking legitimate emails quite a long time to make it through the queue.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:36 • by DaveAronson
205418 in reply to 205411
Leon:
"They must have withdrawn their VC capital by entering their PIN numbers into an ATM machine."

Probably used their VC capital to buy everyone new LCD displays and NIC cards.
...for their PC computers.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:36 • by Sky (unregistered)
What year is this supposed to be set in? If Polly's citing the CAN-SPAM act, then it can't be early 2000.

;-)

Whoops! Fixed a typo. -ed

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:37 • by wingcommander (unregistered)
205420 in reply to 205411
Everyone knows that VC capital should be used to buy Aeron chairs and foosball machines.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:39 • by Riznar (unregistered)
205421 in reply to 205418
DaveAronson:
Leon:
"They must have withdrawn their VC capital by entering their PIN numbers into an ATM machine."

Probably used their VC capital to buy everyone new LCD displays and NIC cards.
...for their PC computers.


Stop it you're hurting me!!!

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:39 • by dw (unregistered)
OP:
In early 2000, John was living it up in Argentina at a startup working on a VCI product


but:

OP:
Polly: According to the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, any and all electronic mail messages-


Continuity fault, or does the story span three years?

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:46 • by scotta (unregistered)
This reminds me of two very similar things that happened to me in 1999...


#1) The nice man at foo@bar.com was really pissed at how much test email he was getting

#2) Using the 'random domain name' without testing doesn't always work. In 1999 I assumed 'yahoo.com' was the most stable site to hit for a positive test. I used 'blahoo.com' as the negative test (i.e., for a domain that does not exist)

... At the time, blahoo.com went to the 'Black Yahoo' (A sort of BET version of yahoo)... I had trouble explaining that one. (it now goes to a 'buy this domain site')

In my defence, I was 20 (and drunk) at the time...

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:46 • by krupa (unregistered)
Fred does stress testing on his workstation using his own accounts!? WTF?

When I did QA we had dedicated machines and user accounts to do our testing. We would eventually put the software on our own workstations but only when it was much closer to Beta testing.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:48 • by cowboy_k
TRWTF is that the sdfjgi.com admins didn't block incoming connections from mail.[company].com once things got bad enough to crash their mail server repeatedly - isn't that SOP for DOS attacks?

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:48 • by Chris (unregistered)
I have had a case of a tester misspelling the company name in a config setting and spamming someone. Not quite these volumes though. We fixed it for the testers by giving them a lightweight smtp server. It would count the messages and only keep the last 100 received.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:48 • by Pope
205428 in reply to 205403
FredSaw:
It's tough to parabolize a slithy tove if it's gyring or gimbling in a wabe.

And, oh yeah... thrid!!!


But, man, if you did... It would be one frabjous day. You'd be one beamish motha f*****. Callooh, callay, indeed.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:50 • by Andy L. (unregistered)
Polly: According to the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, any and all electronic mail messages-

YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF FUTURE LAW!

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:52 • by Matt C (unregistered)
205431 in reply to 205422
2003 is pretty early 2000, especially compared to, say, 2845

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:53 • by ozymandias (unregistered)
205433 in reply to 205426
cowboy_k:
TRWTF is that the sdfjgi.com admins didn't block incoming connections from mail.[company].com once things got bad enough to crash their mail server repeatedly - isn't that SOP for DOS attacks?


or that the mail.[company].com didn't notice the issue, either.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:54 • by Greg (unregistered)
"got a 404 and assumed that meant the domain was unregistered"... ummm... yeah... It kind of only means the exact opposite - that there is a web server at that address.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 10:56 • by Edward Pearson (unregistered)
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought

And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

I still know it by heart...

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:04 • by Mark (unregistered)
So how long were they checking in patches for this problem before somebody decided to check the mail server queue to see if the messages were even being generated?

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:15 • by pyro789x
Well, now it says "early 2004," but I have to question if that's just a correction or if it was changed by the author just to make the story seem more credible, without regard to the truth.

Oh well, it was an interesting story anyway. Soothe me with sweet lies.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:16 • by Aaron
205448 in reply to 205410
akatherder:
And you lose points for not using "cromulent".

Can we please stop this WTF meme? It wasn't even funny the first time I heard it on the Simpsons a decade ago, and quoting TV shows isn't funny in general (and especially when they're that old).

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:20 • by DeLos
205450 in reply to 205410
akatherder:
Maarten:
akatherder:
"They were happily building their software, expanding the team, burning through their VC capital,"

They must have withdrawn their VC capital by entering their PIN numbers into an ATM machine.


Of course "VC capital" is short for "venture capitalists capital" so it's an entirely valid abbreviation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC

And you lose points for not using "cromulent".


I'm still sticking with Maarten on this one. VC could be venture capitalists so it is ok. VC money would probably eliminate the redundancy (or in this case appearance of redundancy). Your wiki entry (besides being possibly fallible, damn user contributed content) gives many possibilities for VC so why not one more?

I'll see your link and raise mine: http://bostonvcblog.typepad.com/vc/2008/05/vcs-and-deal-flow-seeing-everything-doing-nearly-nothing.html where they use VC (venture capital) and VCs (Venture Capitalists).

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:21 • by Walleye (unregistered)
205451 in reply to 205448
Aaron:
akatherder:
And you lose points for not using "cromulent".

Can we please stop this WTF meme? It wasn't even funny the first time I heard it on the Simpsons a decade ago, and quoting TV shows isn't funny in general (and especially when they're that old).


Watchoo talkin' about, Willis?

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:26 • by n9ds
205453 in reply to 205442
Mark:
So how long were they checking in patches for this problem before somebody decided to check the mail server queue to see if the messages were even being generated?


"Q. How many programmers does it take to check a mail queue for pending messages?"

"A. None, that's a mail administrator function, so keep your #&^*#$ developer fingers off my *#$#& server."

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:33 • by JAM (unregistered)
205455 in reply to 205421
STFU up and take an NSAID drug.
Mmmmm, NSAID drugs 4TW win.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:34 • by JAM (unregistered)
205456 in reply to 205448
TL;DR read.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:34 • by FredSaw
205457 in reply to 205451
Walleye:
Watchoo talkin' about, Willis?
Ward, I'm worried about the Beaver and Walleye. They've been behaving strangely today.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:36 • by Matt.C
205460 in reply to 205456
JAM:
TL;DR read.

Your own comment was too long...?

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:42 • by Dan (unregistered)
So, outgoing mail wasn't working, the code looked fine... and it took them how long before someone thought to check the outgoing mail server? TRWTF is that nobody associated 'e-mail problems' with 'check the e-mail server'.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:47 • by JAM (unregistered)
205467 in reply to 205460
Matt.C:
JAM:
TL;DR read.

Your own comment was too long...?


What can I say? I find myself pretty boring sometimes!

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:55 • by Andy L. (unregistered)
205470 in reply to 205430
Andy L.:
Polly: According to the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, any and all electronic mail messages-

YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF FUTURE LAW!


THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATING FUTURE LAW IS FOUR YEARS IN SUSPENDED ANIMATION!

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:57 • by Kuli (unregistered)
205471 in reply to 205415
Quietust:
Sorry, you lose - the testers DID enter their real email addresses, but due to Fred having entered a bogus email address and filling up the queue with hundreds of thousands of messages (which were being delivered rather slowly due to the constantly crashing mail server at the other end), it was taking legitimate emails quite a long time to make it through the queue.

What kind of lousy email server did they use that sends mails only sequentially? Normally this shouldn't be a problem for a common mail server.

Remember that a non-responding counterpart is a normal situation, and that servers should try sending for some days before giving up.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 11:59 • by Walleye (unregistered)
205472 in reply to 205457
FredSaw:
Walleye:
Watchoo talkin' about, Willis?
Ward, I'm worried about the Beaver and Walleye. They've been behaving strangely today.


Say goodnight, Gracie.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 12:08 • by danixdefcon5
205474 in reply to 205430
Andy L.:
Polly: According to the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, any and all electronic mail messages-

YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF FUTURE LAW!
Run! The precogs know you're going to spam them!

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 12:18 • by cellocgw (unregistered)
205475 in reply to 205402
"They must have withdrawn their VC capital by entering their PIN numbers into an ATM machine."

Nice try, but "VC capital" refers to their source. "VC" can just as easily refer to a 'venture capitalist,' or to a generic VC corporation. Maybe a startup has two sources of capital, say VC and inital sales.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 12:19 • by Mogri (unregistered)
If the startup was entirely Argentinian, I'm curious how the (American) CAN-SPAM Act applied. Presumably the caller realized she was dialing an out-of-country number.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 12:23 • by Jay (unregistered)
205478 in reply to 205450
DeLos:
I'll see your link and raise mine: http://bostonvcblog.typepad.com/vc/2008/05/vcs-and-deal-flow-seeing-everything-doing-nearly-nothing.html where they use VC (venture capital) and VCs (Venture Capitalists).


Ooooooohhhhhh. I was wondering if he meant they got money from Visual C or from the Viet Cong.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 12:29 • by Jay (unregistered)
I worked on a project where a user could upload a data file, which would then kick off a long process that could run from a few minutes to a few hours, and when it was done we would send them an email.

Except ... one day one of the programmers was making a change and accidentally moved the send-email call from right after the "process a record" loop completed, to just inside the loop. So now we were sending an email for each record processed, which was typically tens of thousands per file upload. The Spam police came for us the day we started testing. At least we were only spamming our own organization.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 12:34 • by snoofle
So has nobody ever thought of sending test emails (via configuration) to: deletethis@mydomain.com ???

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 12:36 • by richardchaven
205483 in reply to 205436
Edward Pearson:
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
...

I still know it by heart...


It's better in German <s>.

Re: CAN-(ACCIDENTALLY)-SPAM

2008-07-10 12:46 • by Charles (unregistered)
layman's terms it synergizes backward overflow while optimizing cardinal grammeters in addition to allowing customers to parabolize slithy toves at the least embiggoned cost possible.


Laymen's terms, huh?
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4Next »

Add Comment