Young man (17-19yo) knocks at the door seeking donations to 'Save the
Children'. Only £1.85 a week says he - seemed like a con, was it likely
to have been?

When told no, suggested all our neighbours had been more generous.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:30:09 GMT, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

Young man (17-19yo) knocks at the door seeking donations to 'Save the
Children'. Only £1.85 a week says he - seemed like a con, was it likely
to have been?

Seems a bit of an odd figure - why £1.85, I wonder.

Did he have any ID with him?

Charities do seem to ask specific amounts these days though.



See if there's a "Save the Children" website somewhere that might
help.

--
Frank Erskine

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:30:09 GMT, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

Young man (17-19yo) knocks at the door seeking donations to 'Save the
Children'. Only £1.85 a week says he - seemed like a con, was it likely
to have been?

More than likely although he should have had an ID card to prove who
he was.

When told no, suggested all our neighbours had been more generous.

More fool them then and does not say much for him with such a cheap
jibe.

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Young man (17-19yo) knocks at the door seeking donations to 'Save the
Children'. Only £1.85 a week says he - seemed like a con, was it likely to
have been?

When told no, suggested all our neighbours had been more generous.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)


So what are you going to D-I-Y about it:-)?

Get a sign up like mine. "No sales reps, bible bashers or hawkers - Thank
You"

The pests soon stop knocking.

Adam

On 11/01/2010 20:30, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Young man (17-19yo) knocks at the door seeking donations to 'Save the
Children'. Only £1.85 a week says he - seemed like a con, was it likely
to have been?

When told no, suggested all our neighbours had been more generous.

Wouldn't have got anything here.

If not a con, it is insulting, it is misuse of private information and
probably a very inefficient means of raising revenue. I look on anyone
trying that as a blackmailer. And probably in line to receive some
payment himself.

Any charitable donations I may make are direct to the charity and, if
possible, use whatever Giftaid tax benefits are available.

--
Rod

ARWadsworth wrote on 11/01/2010 :
Get a sign up like mine. "No sales reps, bible bashers or hawkers - Thank
You"

The pests soon stop knocking.

Had such a sign up for a few years. They read it, then decide it
doesn't apply to them. Too be fair it was dark when this one called.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 11/01/10 20:36, Frank Erskine wrote:

Seems a bit of an odd figure - why £1.85, I wonder.

Probably related to GiftAid, for each £1 donated by a taxpayer, the
charity actually receives £100/78.

Still £1.85 x 52 x 100/78 works out at an odd amount (£123.33/year)
maybe the chugger earns the £23.33?

Frank Erskine presented the following explanation :
See if there's a "Save the Children" website somewhere that might
help.

I have just checked, and there is no such amount mentioned that I could
see. I phoned them and they were 'not very helpful', so I have now
emailed them.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:
Young man (17-19yo) knocks at the door seeking donations to 'Save the
Children'. Only £1.85 a week says he - seemed like a con, was it likely
to have been?

When told no, suggested all our neighbours had been more generous.

There are quite a number of genuine door-to-door charity collectors.
It's illegal for them to collect money at the door, so they get you
to sign up. They earn quite a commission for each person they sign up.

There are also lots of people trying to get hold of your bank and/or
card details. The amount suggested here is designed to be too low
for you to worry about, but it's also rather too low for the charity
to be interested in after they've paid the collector's commission,
so I think it could well have been an effort to obtain banking info.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:27:09 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

There are quite a number of genuine door-to-door charity collectors.
It's illegal for them to collect money at the door, so they get you
to sign up. They earn quite a commission for each person they sign up.

Is that a recent "law" ? cos Oxfam or one of the other big charities
used to deliver envelopes round our way and then collect them later
when you had stuck some cash in them .....but that hasn't happened in
a while .

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:27:09 +0000 (UTC) Andrew Gabriel wrote :
There are quite a number of genuine door-to-door charity collectors.
It's illegal for them to collect money at the door, so they get you
to sign up. They earn quite a commission for each person they sign
up.

Authorised house to house collecting is quite legal: I collected
during Christian Aid Week for many years. I'd rather hand over a
fiver to someone I didn't know than my bank details.

"If you thought being hassled by charity fundraisers in the street
was bad enough, how would you feel if they started appearing at your
front door? Charities that seek to sign up monthly donors are
increasingly shifting from pavements to doorsteps ..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007...oluntarysector

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:56:52 +1100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:27:09 +0000 (UTC) Andrew Gabriel wrote :
There are quite a number of genuine door-to-door charity collectors.
It's illegal for them to collect money at the door, so they get you
to sign up. They earn quite a commission for each person they sign
up.

Authorised house to house collecting is quite legal: I collected
during Christian Aid Week for many years. I'd rather hand over a
fiver to someone I didn't know than my bank details.

"If you thought being hassled by charity fundraisers in the street
was bad enough, how would you feel if they started appearing at your
front door? Charities that seek to sign up monthly donors are
increasingly shifting from pavements to doorsteps ..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007...oluntarysector

Aah...It was Christian Aid....not Oxfam ...wee red and white envelopes
iirc!!

On 11/01/10 21:27, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In . co.uk,
Harry writes:
Young man (17-19yo) knocks at the door seeking donations to 'Save the
Children'. Only £1.85 a week says he - seemed like a con, was it likely
to have been?

I've had callers from other charities, generally requesting direct-debit
payments of around £2 per month.


When told no, suggested all our neighbours had been more generous.

There are quite a number of genuine door-to-door charity collectors.
It's illegal for them to collect money at the door, so they get you
to sign up. They earn quite a commission for each person they sign up.

There are also lots of people trying to get hold of your bank and/or
card details. The amount suggested here is designed to be too low
for you to worry about, but it's also rather too low for the charity
to be interested in after they've paid the collector's commission,
so I think it could well have been an effort to obtain banking info.


I don't think that's what they want. If you sign up they have your
contact details and they know that you are a soft touch. You should
expect to get lots of begging letters from the charity. They will also
sell your details to other charities who will also plague you.


--
Bernard Peek

In message , Usenet Nutter
writes
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:56:52 +1100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:27:09 +0000 (UTC) Andrew Gabriel wrote :
There are quite a number of genuine door-to-door charity collectors.
It's illegal for them to collect money at the door, so they get you
to sign up. They earn quite a commission for each person they sign
up.

Authorised house to house collecting is quite legal: I collected
during Christian Aid Week for many years. I'd rather hand over a
fiver to someone I didn't know than my bank details.

"If you thought being hassled by charity fundraisers in the street
was bad enough, how would you feel if they started appearing at your
front door? Charities that seek to sign up monthly donors are
increasingly shifting from pavements to doorsteps ..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007...oluntarysector

Aah...It was Christian Aid....not Oxfam ...wee red and white envelopes
iirc!!


Yup, and they still do.
--
Chris French

In article ,
Usenet Nutter writes:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:27:09 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

There are quite a number of genuine door-to-door charity collectors.
It's illegal for them to collect money at the door, so they get you
to sign up. They earn quite a commission for each person they sign up.

Is that a recent "law" ? cos Oxfam or one of the other big charities
used to deliver envelopes round our way and then collect them later
when you had stuck some cash in them .....but that hasn't happened in
a while .

Don't know details, but one of them was being interviewed on the
telly a couple of months back about their work, and he said it was
illegal for them to accept money on the spot, and their task is to
get people signed up for a continuous payment. However, it would
take best part of a year to pay his commission at the proposed
rate, so this doesn't sound genuine to me.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:03:35 +0000 Bernard Peek wrote :
I don't think that's what they want. If you sign up they have your
contact details and they know that you are a soft touch. You
should expect to get lots of begging letters from the charity.

That was a major irritation to me. I supported a number of charities
by standing order precisely because I understood that it helped them
to know that £x was coming in each month, rather than being
dependent on the vagaries of one-off appeals. One that really
annoyed me said something like "we know that in August donations
fall off so we are asking whether you can make an extra gift", to
which my response (not sent) was that if they knew that receipts
fall off in August they should budget accordingly.

But why do they send out all this bumpf? Because it delivers.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

Bernard Peek wrote:

I don't think that's what they want. If you sign up they have your
contact details and they know that you are a soft touch. You should
expect to get lots of begging letters from the charity. They will also
sell your details to other charities who will also plague you.

Yeah, exactly the sort of behaviour likely to get themselves in people's
good books so that they will be inclined to help them. Not.

Pete

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:30:09 GMT, Harry Bloomfield
wrote:

Young man (17-19yo) knocks at the door seeking donations to 'Save the
Children'. Only £1.85 a week says he - seemed like a con, was it likely
to have been?

Seems a bit of an odd figure - why £1.85, I wonder.

Did he have any ID with him?

Charities do seem to ask specific amounts these days though.



See if there's a "Save the Children" website somewhere that might
help.

Harry said that the guy said he was seeking donations *to* save the children,
not that he was *from* Save the Children. Pretty much QED IMHO

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On 11/01/2010 23:20, Graham. wrote:

Harry said that the guy said he was seeking donations *to* save the children,
not that he was *from* Save the Children. Pretty much QED IMHO


Kenny Everett on London's Capital Radio during their 'Help a London
Child' fund raising appeal, somewhere back in the eighties.

"Oooo, I'd like to be that child. Imagine, you could all be raising that
money, for me!!!"

Or some equal silliness, I can't remember it exactly - but close ;-)

--
Adrian C

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Harry Bloomfield writes:
Young man (17-19yo) knocks at the door seeking donations to 'Save the
Children'. Only £1.85 a week says he - seemed like a con, was it
likely to have been?

When told no, suggested all our neighbours had been more generous.

There are quite a number of genuine door-to-door charity collectors.
It's illegal for them to collect money at the door, so they get you
to sign up. They earn quite a commission for each person they sign up.

There are also lots of people trying to get hold of your bank and/or
card details. The amount suggested here is designed to be too low
for you to worry about, but it's also rather too low for the charity
to be interested in after they've paid the collector's commission,
so I think it could well have been an effort to obtain banking info.

Its also a con used by charities. Few years ago I had a guy asking for a
single, one off donation of £5 to help deaf children. Couldn't take any
money from me, would I fill in a form. When I read it closely it was a DD
form for £5 a month, but not at all obvious unless you read it in great
detail.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 00:50:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Its also a con used by charities. Few years ago I had a guy asking for a
single, one off donation of £5 to help deaf children. Couldn't take any
money from me, would I fill in a form. When I read it closely it was a DD
form for £5 a month, but not at all obvious unless you read it in great
detail.

Would the Sort Code + Account Number not be a giveaway? :-)

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:06:48 +0000, Usenet Nutter wrote:

... guy asking for a single, one off donation of £5 ...
snip
... a DD form for £5 a month, ...

Would the Sort Code + Account Number not be a giveaway? :-)

Mis leading information given by the canvaser. You'd still need to
give the SC & Acc.No. for a one off donation via DD (which would mean
tne charity got even less after the DD set up fees had been taken by
the bank).

--
Cheers
Dave.

Andrew Gabriel
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 10:18


From what I recall, they're either on an hourly rate, or they're
on a commission per sign-up (typically£50, ISTR). When
the charities are asked, most claim their chuggers are on an
hourly rate, but actually that's not true, and they're mostly on
commission. They generally don't work for the charity, but for
separate (non-charity status) fund-raising companies.

Whatever the case, this particular chugger wasn't asking for
enough money to be genuine.


Oh great. So rather a significant proportion of someone's giving goes to
fund the chugger's wages *and* to run some random company...

I can fully appreciate that giving dosh directly to a charity entails some
of the money being used for staff - but at least the understanding is that
those staff are working directly towards the aim of the charity. Not funding
a whole food chain of scavengers.



--
Tim Watts

You know you need more insulation when the snow blanket on the roof makes
the house 3 degrees warmer...

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:45:48 GMT someone who may be Harry Bloomfield
wrote this:-

ARWadsworth wrote on 11/01/2010 :
Get a sign up like mine. "No sales reps, bible bashers or hawkers - Thank
You"

Had such a sign up for a few years. They read it, then decide it
doesn't apply to them.

Then they are being rude and you may not feel the need to be
particularly polite. Same with other forms of direct marketing.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

In article ,
Tim W writes:
Andrew Gabriel
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 10:18


From what I recall, they're either on an hourly rate, or they're
on a commission per sign-up (typically£50, ISTR). When
the charities are asked, most claim their chuggers are on an
hourly rate, but actually that's not true, and they're mostly on
commission. They generally don't work for the charity, but for
separate (non-charity status) fund-raising companies.

Whatever the case, this particular chugger wasn't asking for
enough money to be genuine.


Oh great. So rather a significant proportion of someone's giving goes to
fund the chugger's wages *and* to run some random company...

I can fully appreciate that giving dosh directly to a charity entails some
of the money being used for staff - but at least the understanding is that
those staff are working directly towards the aim of the charity. Not funding
a whole food chain of scavengers.

Indeed, although charities find they get more income this way.
Same is true of the common web based donation methods used
to select the charity you want to give to, which slice
something off. (Lack of any warning about this when making a
donation has come up on Radio 4's You and Yours in the past.)

The two charities I support get paid direct without any
involvement of fund raising companies.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:30:40 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

The two charities I support get paid direct without any
involvement of fund raising companies.

I imagine all charities would like it if all their supporters did
this. The ones I support certainly would. However, they would have
to increase the number of staff employed in order to reach the same
income level. There must come a point where it is more efficient to
contract out part of the fund raising, Mrs Thatcher would be proud
of them.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

Huge wrote:
On 2010-01-12, Tim W wrote:

What they need to do is to have a drive to get eyeballs there and to make
the whole process of giving (which should be either the choice of a painless
one off

I gave a reasonable sum to Save The Children when we came back from India
a couple of years ago, and the *******s have bombarded me with begging
letters ever since.

probably costing them more than the actual sum you gave: most charities
budgets go on fundraising activities. To the point where its arguable
any ever gets to the stated target.

Same with most government grants actually.

In the end they are just novel ways to create jobs for useless people.

Frankly, all they've done is guarantee they'll never
get another penny off me.


I simply won't do charities at all.

I'd rather give a couple of quid to a beggar on the streets, frankly.
Even if it does go on methylated spirits.

Huge
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 14:18

On 2010-01-12, Tim W wrote:

What they need to do is to have a drive to get eyeballs there and to make
the whole process of giving (which should be either the choice of a
painless one off

I gave a reasonable sum to Save The Children when we came back from India
a couple of years ago, and the *******s have bombarded me with begging
letters ever since. Frankly, all they've done is guarantee they'll never
get another penny off me.


Which is why I don't want to be giving them my email address (or any other
address if I can pay without).

Never mind - next new feature I'll be implementing in my new exim (email)
config soon will be throwaway addresses ( eg tw_amazon@... ) then I can see
exactly who is leaking my details - and blacklist them...

--
Tim Watts

You know you need more insulation when the snow blanket on the roof makes
the house 3 degrees warmer...

The Natural Philosopher
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 14:22

Huge wrote:
On 2010-01-12, Tim W wrote:

What they need to do is to have a drive to get eyeballs there and to
make the whole process of giving (which should be either the choice of a
painless one off

I gave a reasonable sum to Save The Children when we came back from India
a couple of years ago, and the *******s have bombarded me with begging
letters ever since.

probably costing them more than the actual sum you gave: most charities
budgets go on fundraising activities. To the point where its arguable
any ever gets to the stated target.

Same with most government grants actually.

But the fact that our various governments take our money and find novel ways
to waste it is practically a tautology. He says, having HMRC tax return web
thingy open on the screen right now... (bah)

In the end they are just novel ways to create jobs for useless people.

I suppose I'd rather pay to have extra Civil Servants than pay benefits to
useless chavs - at least the former keeps them off the streets 9-5. I prefer
my Civil Servants and politicians useless - it's the ones who try to be
useful that are dangerous.

Frankly, all they've done is guarantee they'll never
get another penny off me.


I simply won't do charities at all.

I'd rather give a couple of quid to a beggar on the streets, frankly.
Even if it does go on methylated spirits.

Or spend it in the charity shop. Re-use of products, employment, and maybe a
bit left for some charity - at least there are several winners that way. Our
local one is like Arkwrights - floor to ceiling with loads of cheap (but
usable) stuff. And they do and take electrical (her husband is a qualified
PAT tester). I've no objection to buying clothes (they wash), china/glass
(ditto) and even the kiddy games are often in good nick.

--
Tim Watts

You know you need more insulation when the snow blanket on the roof makes
the house 3 degrees warmer...

On 12/01/2010 14:23 Tim W wrote:

Never mind - next new feature I'll be implementing in my new exim (email)
config soon will be throwaway addresses ( eg tw_amazon@... ) then I can see
exactly who is leaking my details - and blacklist them...

My Plusnet account allows unlimited email addresses so I've been doing
this for a few years.

Expedia and Royal Mail have leaked my address.

--
F

On Jan 12, 2:33*pm, Tim W wrote:
The Natural Philosopher
* wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 14:22



Huge wrote:
On 2010-01-12, Tim W wrote:

What they need to do is to have a drive to get eyeballs there and to
make the whole process of giving (which should be either the choice of a
painless one off

I gave a reasonable sum to Save The Children when we came back from India
a couple of years ago, and the *******s have bombarded me with begging
letters ever since.

probably costing them more than the actual sum you gave: most charities
budgets go on fundraising activities. To the point where its arguable
any ever gets to the stated target.

Same with most government grants actually.

But the fact that our various governments take our money and find novel ways
to waste it is practically a tautology. He says, having HMRC tax return web
thingy open on the screen right now... (bah)

In the end they are just novel ways to create jobs for useless people.

I suppose I'd rather pay to have extra Civil Servants than pay benefits to
useless chavs - at least the former keeps them off the streets 9-5. I prefer
my Civil Servants and politicians useless - it's the ones who try to be
useful that are dangerous.

Frankly, all they've done is guarantee they'll never
get another penny off me.

I simply won't do charities at all.

I'd rather give a couple of quid to a beggar on the streets, frankly.
Even if it does go on methylated spirits.

Or spend it in the charity shop. Re-use of products, employment,

The staff are almost exclusively volunteers. The one my son helps at
will pay luch and trvel expenses if you do a certain minimum number of
hours.

MBQ

F news@nowhere
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 15:11

On 12/01/2010 14:23 Tim W wrote:

Never mind - next new feature I'll be implementing in my new exim (email)
config soon will be throwaway addresses ( eg tw_amazon@... ) then I can
see exactly who is leaking my details - and blacklist them...

My Plusnet account allows unlimited email addresses so I've been doing
this for a few years.

Do they let you disable specific ones too? Or do you have to create extra
ones on demand (I can do this already, but I've going to stick some regex
doobries in my config so they all exist until I blacklist them)

Expedia and Royal Mail have leaked my address.


No surprises there...

--
Tim Watts

Icicles - nature's way of pinpointing all the leaks in your guttering...

Man at B&Q
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 15:19


The staff are almost exclusively volunteers. The one my son helps at
will pay luch and trvel expenses if you do a certain minimum number of
hours.

MBQ

That's nice - it's the way charities ought to be (and used to before some of
them got rediculously top heavy). Hopefully it means more dosh to the
charity...

--
Tim Watts

Icicles - nature's way of pinpointing all the leaks in your guttering...

Tim W wrote:

Which is why I don't want to be giving them my email address (or any other
address if I can pay without).

Never mind - next new feature I'll be implementing in my new exim (email)
config soon will be throwaway addresses ( eg tw_amazon@... ) then I can see
exactly who is leaking my details - and blacklist them...

A very useful feature, not only for tracing leaks. If I get an scam that
appears to be from a bank I don't use it is obviously a fishing expedition.
If it purports to be from my bank there may be a moments hesitation before
sending it to the bit bucket. If the email address I use for online
banking is never used elsewhere then that is another check on authenticity.

--
djc

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:08:36 +0000 someone who may be Tim W
wrote this:-

standing orders are incredibly easy for people who do
online baking to set up and leaves the control firmly with the person).

I agree that they should make this easy. On the other hand may
organisations have geared themselves up so that they have control,
via the spawn of satan direct debits where many people are stupid
enough to allow any amount of money to be stolen from their account
any time.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:43:23 +0000, Tim W wrote:

What would be really cool would be a local admin email address I can
bounce the throwaway emails to with a one line instruction, like "kill
this account" or "expires 2010-03-23" (Ideal for one off transactions
where I will never use the address again).

Good idea - pretty simple to implement that here!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 12/01/2010 16:10 Tim W wrote:

Fnews@nowhere
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 15:11

My Plusnet account allows unlimited email addresses so I've been doing
this for a few years.

Do they let you disable specific ones too?

I don't know: I've never bothered. I do know you can 'blackhole' some
addresses so perhaps the answer is 'yes'?

Or do you have to create extra
ones on demand (I can do this already, but I've going to stick some regex
doobries in my config so they all exist until I blacklist them)

Any time I'm asked for an email address I create an appropriate one.
Bloggs Tea Cosies would get bloggsteacosies@.... It's quite amusing when
I do that on the phone as they often say 'No, not our address, yours'.

Expedia and Royal Mail have leaked my address.


No surprises there...

Both deny it but they're the only ones to get those unique addresses and
the chances of a spammer making them up has got to be ultra remote.

--
F

F wrote:
On 12/01/2010 16:10 Tim W wrote:

Fnews@nowhere
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 15:11

My Plusnet account allows unlimited email addresses so I've been doing
this for a few years.

Do they let you disable specific ones too?

I don't know: I've never bothered. I do know you can 'blackhole' some
addresses so perhaps the answer is 'yes'?

Or do you have to create extra
ones on demand (I can do this already, but I've going to stick some regex
doobries in my config so they all exist until I blacklist them)

Any time I'm asked for an email address I create an appropriate one.
Bloggs Tea Cosies would get bloggsteacosies@.... It's quite amusing when
I do that on the phone as they often say 'No, not our address, yours'.

Expedia and Royal Mail have leaked my address.


No surprises there...

Both deny it but they're the only ones to get those unique addresses and
the chances of a spammer making them up has got to be ultra remote.

it may well not be policy, but its a quick way for an underpaid sysadmin
to pick up an extra grand on the side.

I take it as read that any email address I use online will become a spam
target.

I used to use one for every shop, but I cant be arsed now. I just use a
new one every so often, and after a few months, ditch it.

David Hansen
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 16:57

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:08:36 +0000 someone who may be Tim W
wrote this:-

standing orders are incredibly easy for people who do
online baking to set up and leaves the control firmly with the person).

I agree that they should make this easy. On the other hand may
organisations have geared themselves up so that they have control,
via the spawn of satan direct debits where many people are stupid
enough to allow any amount of money to be stolen from their account
any time.



And their evil big brother "Continuous Authority".

At least you can kill a DD from your end - you cannot with a CA (which is in
one form, a version of DD for credit cards).

I don't mind DDs with reputable people, but I will never use a CA.
--
Tim Watts

Icicles - nature's way of pinpointing all the leaks in your guttering...

Bob Eager
wibbled on Tuesday 12 January 2010 17:12

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:43:23 +0000, Tim W wrote:

What would be really cool would be a local admin email address I can
bounce the throwaway emails to with a one line instruction, like "kill
this account" or "expires 2010-03-23" (Ideal for one off transactions
where I will never use the address again).

Good idea - pretty simple to implement that here!


I pondered a web interface to flat files (could be dbm or RDBMS but my
"site" is so tiny, flat files will do) - in the end, I decided, if I'm
looking at an email client, I'd rather stay in it, not move to a web browser
for this one op. Bit like using the DSPAM/Dovecot integration (antispam
module for Dovecot) - user simply drags messages in or out of the Junk
folder to retrain DSPAM, no faffing with the web interface or funny email
addresses.

In fact, that gives me a better idea - if I can do something with the
antispam module, I ought to be able to set up another couple of magic IMAP
folders called "Kill" and "KillInAMonth" (or week or whatever) for disabling
the throwaways. Even easier then.

On an aside, I wonder how easy or not it would be to do this sort of stuff
with Exchange - never having touched it?

--
Tim Watts

Icicles - nature's way of pinpointing all the leaks in your guttering...