Comments on: Spam Arrest Tries to Rewrite History, Asks Authors to Remove Negative Reviews of SpamArrest

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:47:15 +0000

I accidentally paid spamarrest a subscription, when i was still on a free period that they offered me. My Paypal sent them some money, which they have basically said, you sent it to us, it’s your fault, no refund!
ok, it was my oversight, but surely when you pay a company money by accident, they give it back?
I won’t be recommending Spamarrest.

By: jen

jen — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 04:35:46 +0000

I don’t understand why people have anything against service like spamarrset. I have had my business address since 2003 and get literally 500-1000 emails a day. Thankfully spamarrest blocks almost all of them. I would not get any work done without it.

The only complaint I have is with their server. When I log on online it is really jumbled and can not handle subfolders.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:34:23 +0000

Spamarrest works perfectly for me and has for a number of years.

“If you have not posted a comment here before, we apologize for having to ask you to enter the letters and numbers you see in the image above to validate your comment, but we are being attacked by thousands of comment form spams every day! You only need to do this once; once you have successfuly posted a comment here you will not be asked to do this again.”

Exactly the point of keeping my Spamarrest service.

By: David

David — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:56:18 +0000

I had been a loyal and paying customer of Spamarrest for some time, recently their service has been erratic and I lost a number of important messages. After not receiving adequate support I decided to cancel my recently renewed account and asked for a refund of the unused portion. Here is their response:
Hi David,

Thanks once again.

David, I am very sorry to tell you that we are not able to offer you a refund for your account. You may continue to use your Spam Arrest account till 2008-10-01 by reactivating the account.

I truly apologize for your inconvenience, David. Please do let me know if you need anything else.

Best Regards,
Peter
Technical Support Specialist
Spam Arrest

By: remove spyware

remove spyware — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:06:48 +0000

even if a spam does not trespasses privacy and spyware issues it will allways stay annoyance for users.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 13 May 2005 14:16:09 +0000

Before I even heard about their initial spamming of their customers’ correspondents, I had created an OE message rule to automatically delete any message containing SpamArrest’s challenge string from the server (with three locations & five computers I usually leave messages on the server for 3 days so I can have multiple machine access to them). I let my family and friends know that I would not even see their messages if they used this service, and simply didn’t worry about anyone else whose messages might be s**tcanned as a result. This action was partially because I simply don’t like C/R systems, and don’t think they are very effective, but primarily because I had received a half-dozen challenges from morons who were memebers of mailing lists to which I belong. Any imbecile who joins or is a member of a subscription mailing list and expects the entire list to “OK” themselves with his C/R server deserves to have all of his telecommunications go into the great bit-bucket in the sky. As for Cartmell & Co., to paraphrase the adage, they made their cesspool, let them lie in it.

By: Aunty Spam

Aunty Spam — Fri, 06 May 2005 07:18:16 +0000

Oops, thank you Timmer, you are absolutely right. Don’t know how that “Paul” snuck in there at the end, but it’s fixed now! Kissy kissy, Aunty Spam

By: Timmer

Timmer — Thu, 05 May 2005 17:44:14 +0000

I think you mean “Brian” Cartmell, not “Paul”, Aunty.

SpamArrest didn’t spam just spam addresses that *responded* to its challenges, it spammed address that *received* challenges (and I’ll leave the issue of C/R being inherently abusive for another time).

But this is interesting, from the Seattle Times 4/18/05, and would suggest that these “please let bygones be bygones” requests are not out of any sense of contrition:

“Cartmell is launching a marketing campaign next month, which will include nationwide spots on Comedy Central and other cable channels. The ads show a man throwing his computer on the ground and stomping it in frustration. Cartmell estimates that the new business will help Spam Arrest become profitable, likely by the end of the year.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002244362_btinterface18.html