Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 07:08:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Cathy Green <dalek_cag at yahoo.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Capclave '02 (was Re: minders)
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

Bad assumption Ted.  Even the relatively reputable
companies engage in some fairly sleazy mailing
practices.  What prevents you from getting the really
bad junk mail is that you are not gullible.  The lists
the complete sleazoids buy are what are known as
"sucker lists."  In other words, lists containing
names of people who have respondeded to other
solicitations.  You are not getting innundated with
sweepstakes solicitations from semi-legit businessmen
because you've never entered one of their sweepstakes.
(or fill in whatever other stupid scam you want to:
phony work at home schemes, credit cards for people
with bad credit [names gotten from bankruptcy court
files], amazing fat burning kelp patches etc.)

The fact is, since USPS is not allowed to mail without
a warrant (and first class mail is explicitly sealed
against search pursuant to statute), you can do a lot
of illegal stuff through the mail.  The Inspection
Service does its best to stem the tide, but unless
someone has been so outrageous that there is permanent
open file on him, fraud is not investigated without a
complaint from a consumer or from another source such
as an AG's office or BBB.

So I would not assume that your junk mail was "safe"
or "legitimate"

--cathy green
(of course not speaking in her official capacity as
consumer protection attorney at USPS Law Dept. but
draw your own conclusions)

--- Ted White <tedwhite at compusnet.com> wrote:

>
> Um, Keith?  Right now well over 90% of my snail mail
> is "junk mail" -- the
> direct equivilent of spam.
>
> There is, however, one major difference:
> credibility.
>
> Although I toss the vast majority of the junkmail I
> get unopened and unread,
> I know that it is all from relatively reputable
> businesses, who invested time
> and money in the mailing, and who are subject to
> postal fraud laws if they've
> misrepresented themselves.
>

__________________________________________________

http://taxes.yahoo.com/