Campaign spam

oscarBravo

Just got a spam in my inbox:

Dear citizens,

486 million Europeans have been denied a referendum on the Lisbon
treaty - but you have a say!

Find out the yes and no arguments, content analysis, and why the
treaty is bad for democracy:



All the best,

The ERC Team

I'm not impressed.

Sponge Bob

These c***s have bought a spam list somewhere and are busy blasting everyone at the minute . Its being pumped out of Belgium

Send your complaints to abuse@cmail3.com , I most certainly never registered or opted in with them , pack of euro weirdos of some sort

I was going to vote against lisbon but as I fuggin hate spammers I have changed my mind after this !

Never ever spam me again you c***s! Vote Yes ( now )

Return-path: <EuropeanReferendumCampaign-416450I317151674@cmail3.com>
Envelope-to: wankerspannerspammer@iol.ie
Delivery-date: Wed, 21 May 2008 11:50:01 +0100
Received: from Debian-exim by hub11.mail.esat.net with spam-scanned (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <EuropeanReferendumCampaign-416450I317151674@cmail3.com>)
id 1JyltO-0880173-4e
for wankerspannerspammers@iol.ie; Wed, 21 May 2008 11:50:01 +0100
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on
hub11.mail.esat.net
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=4.5 tests=HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12,
HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=disabled version=3.1.7-deb
Received: from m4.campaignmonitor.com ([72.15.222.64])
by hub11.mail.esat.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <EuropeanReferendumCampaign-416450I317151674@cmail3.com>)
id 1JyltN-000167-Q2
for whatdefeckspamisit@iol.ie; Wed, 21 May 2008 11:49:57 +0100
Received: by m4.campaignmonitor.com (PowerMTA(TM) v3.2r5) id h6fv5a0foo43 for <spamnotwahtedhereatalllike@iol.ie>; Wed, 21 May 2008 20:49:56 +1000 (envelope-from <EuropeanReferendumCampaign-416450I317151674@cmail3.com>)
From: "European Referendum Campaign" <diana@erc2.org>
To: "poorbastardspammer@iol.ie" <poorbastardspammer@iol.ie>
Reply-To: diana@erc2.org
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 20:49:56 +1000
Subject: Email to Irish Citizens
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_=aspNetEmail=_c22e90caed054b1c84e1bd8e82d183c9"
X-Mailer: cmail3.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cmail3.com
Received: from [87.64.12.64] by cmail3.com via HTTP; Wed, 21 May 2008 08:49:56 +1000
List-Unsubscribe: <http://unsub.cmail3.com/u/416450/eirjrti4/&gt;
Message-ID: <cm.4774jl.eirjrti4.r@cmail3.com>

Liam Byrne

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I was going to vote against lisbon but as I fuggin hate spammers I have changed my mind after this !

Hate spammers too (think they should be shot) but when the alternative is "vote yes or we'll make you vote twice" or "we can't renegotiate so vote yes or we'll be shot down" from an impotent Government that doesn't even bother discussing issues with external powers "just in case" (e.g. Shannon / U.S. Government fiasco) in this case I think I'd just ignore the spam issue altogether and vote based on who / what I believe and understand......which ain't a lot, considering the lack of discussion - it's all soundbites like "it's good for us", "it's bad for us", etc.

I mean, I could easily say "Jaysus, Gerry Adams & Mary Lou told us to vote against (want to shoot it down ?? ), so I'm voting for", but it's too big an issue.

oscarBravo

(merged)

Sponge Bob

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Hate spammers too

I evidently hate spammers more than you do so I am now voting yes in response to this gross invasion of my privacy by some pack of euro weirdos somewhere.

bonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

it's all soundbites like "it's good for us", "it's bad for us", etc.

Or, indeed, soundbites like

"vote yes or we'll make you vote twice"

or

"we can't renegotiate so vote yes or we'll be shot down"


or

an impotent Government that doesn't even bother discussing issues with external powers "just in case"

considering the lack of discussion

There's no shortage of discussion. Much of it, I grant you, is taken up by a small number of people trying to correct the same misconceptions being repeatedly spread again and again, but even that should tell you something.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

There's no shortage of discussion. Much of it, I grant you, is taken up by a small number of people trying to correct the same misconceptions being repeatedly spread again and again, but even that should tell you something.

And a largely thankless task it is, like trying to shovel water in a midge-infested bog. Keep up the good work!

cordially,
Scofflaw