On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:07:42 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:47:48 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
><duq7v29vsu07n8o9g6953mcgcg4rfjdlou@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 07:39:00 -0400, Mary <zzz@zzz.com> wrote:
>
>>>One question. Do you, or for that matter, does anybody consider this
>>>type of message to be spam? Personally I don't. I haven't checked my
>>>phone yet but I would actually appreciate there sending it out.
>>
>>This is quite DIFFERENT from the SPAM I received by text message which
>>only wanted to sell txt and photo messaging, and had no
>>way listed to stop future such SPAM, and was sent to a cell phone
>>where txt messaging had been disabled (and was still showing as such
>>in Cingular's records). You sure are working
>>hard to defend the undefendable.
>
>No offense intended, but I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Despite
>how you feel personally, this isn't actual "spam" by the commonly
>accepted definition.
By the John navas definition only. Unsolicited attempt to sell
services = SPAM
+ . In years as a Cingular customer never before March 9, 2007 had I
received a "Administrative Message" by txt on my cell phone.
It was plainly a SPAM message as all it did was direct me to a
Cingular website to learn about buying txt or photo messaging from my
cell phone; a service I asked to be disabled in July of 2004, and
Cingular CSRs confirmed that my account showed that txt messaging was
turned off.
Cinglar never-the-less violated my privacy and its own privacy
rules by sending me the SPAM txt message, and
lamely trying to CYA by calling it an "Administrative Message".
Any 12 of my peers (except Navas) would conclude it was SPAM.
Heavens forfend Cingular use an insert with my next bill.
+. I was NEVER given the opportunity to opt out.
+. I never opted in to receive same.
+. The message received on March 9, was clearly not Administrative, as
if I had not received it or acted upon that message, my account would
not have been affected in any way, however the SPAM
failed to give receipient option to not receive such anymore, a
clear
violation of Federal Law. (i.e.) reply with a "CANCEL" to stop
receiving
administrative messages. A true Administrative Message would be
like the notice I received from DirecTv telling me my units WOULD
be affected
if they hadn't received the recent updates to handle the new
longer Daylight Savings Time.
+. I have now asked that my account be configured to NEVER receive
Adminsitartive txt Messages, but fear Cingular will invent some
new name for SPAM, and automatically opt me in to receive such; as it
improperly just did for the SPAM I received on March 9.
+. Cingular refused to offer any compensation for its outrageous,
illegal actions; and the time and energy it took me to discover what
was happening. I HAVE MY OPTIONS HERE.
+. Cingular has clearly been disingenuous and dishonest in dealing
with me on this matter.
> You have an existing business relationship with
>Cingular, which makes it legal and legitimate for Cingular to contact
>you regarding that business relationship.
I had text messaging tuned off on my account, and they over rode it to
SPAM me.
> If you don't want such
>communications from Cingular, then do business with someone else.
That is certainly an option.
> If
>you don't like that legal standard, then contact your government. And
>think hard about why you're getting major upset over something so minor.
It's Cingular's unique interpretation that's in question.
Re: Anyone else get TXT Message Spam from Cingular lately? 
Linear Mode
