Michael Perone, owner of Barracuda Networks or barracudanetworks.com, sent this objection to the presence of his domain names in the Rhyolite Software list of related unwelcome domains. Because it was not filtered by the Rhyolite Software spam defenses but reached my mailbox, I answered with this. Mr. Perone had previously sent this objection and another objection that were blocked.
Mr. Perone's domain names are present because of this spam as well as this. See also these Google archives of spam for address.com and addressisp.com as well as these and also these
Mr. Perone responded with this. His definition of "OPT-IN marketing" may differ from mine, because I'm certain I never asked for advertising about Address.com's Premium Internet Service.
Given what I now know of their relationship to address.com and addressisp.com, my rules of engagement would have me add barracudanetworks.com and apinternet.com to the list of domain names that are unwelcome at Rhyolite Software. I won't for now, because I have accepted mail from addresses there before I knew of the connections to address.com and addressisp.com. Note that some barracudanetworks.com systems have long been in the blacklist of DCC clients because of objectionable traffic sent to the public DCC servers.
Mr. Perone sent this suggestion for a telephone call. That sounds unlikely to be a productive use of his time or mine, because there is no obvious misunderstanding. Mr. Perone said he is responsible for sending unsolicited bulk commercial advertising email to me, and that qualifies entries in the Rhyolite Software list of unwelcome domains.
On December 19, we exchanged some mail messages
Mr. Perone said there are errors my list. I asked what they are.
He answered that he is not a spammer and that address.com has sent opt-in email but very limited numbers of them to it own subscribers. He also said that he owns "BarracudaNetworks.com the leading provider of ANTI SPAM solutions!"
I responded by saying that I certainly had not subscribed to the address.com unsolicited bulk mail or spam.
He also asked what he could provide or do for me might help me work with him on this issue. I answered that my web pages have nothing to do with extortion. In fairness to the owners of other domain names whose spam was less blatant than the address.com spam or who have not tried to contact me, I cannot remove Mr. Perone's domain names. There are only three reasons for removing entries:
Later on December 19, Mr. Perone responded with three more messages. In the first, he offered to convince me that the unsolicited bulk mail sent to me from his systems was not spam. In the second he lamented the sad fact that the "real 'SPAMMERS'" have taken over the Internet and my "negative attitude." In the third he said that most of the Google results were forged and that his mailings from firstname.lastname@example.org were his "legitimate opt-in emails that we had the right to send."
I responded that we disagree about his right to send me this spam. That message had an SMTP envelope sender of email@example.com and came from an address.com IP address. I do not think I ever did anything that might be construed as soliciting mail from address.com, including indirectly by contacting one of Mr. Perone's other enterprises or even one of his competitors. Judging from these Google results, I am not alone.
Mr. Perone responded twice. First he said
Yes, to email accounts of users who signed up for services at address.com, Inc. It is possible that someone signed up using your email address. We did not have a double opt-in at address.com. Now it is celar that we should have...but that was what everyone thought was right 4 years ago.Then he asked "Is there anything we can do to stop this from continuing to go in circles?"
It is possible that third parties were responsible for the unsolicited address.com. However, I am not convinced for various reasons. It is not that the spam is closer to 2 than 4 years old. It is also not the use of the phrase "double opt-in" that is a favorite of unsolicited bulk mail advertisers trying to make the practice for subscribing to bulk mail sound burdensome instead of the standard for solicited bulk mail that it has been for many years. It is that the messages look more like unsolicited advertising than a welcome sent to new subscribers, users, customers, or prospects. If a third party signed up for address.com services using my address, why was nothing sent before that advertising, such as instructions or other information about the services? Another problem is that it took so many cycles of "Address.com doesn't send spam" and "What about these unsolicited bulk mail messages?" to reach this point. Either Mr. Perone knew from the start about what he now admits happened or he didn't and also is only guessing that third parties submitted my address.
That I received unsolicited bulk email or spam from address.com now seems undisputed. That mandates an entry in the list of unwelcome domains until someone at Rhyolite Software needs to communicate with someone using an address at address.com. I still see nothing to talk about.
Contact Vernon Scrhyver at firstname.lastname@example.org.