what do you think?

[josh]

In the 12 years that spamgourmet has been up, I've had surprisingly few requests by third parties to get the identity of or have me forward a message to a spamgourmet user who apparently isn't receiving (or reading) their messages. Strangely, this happened much more often in the beginning, with many fewer spamgourmet users than we have today. Maybe the futility of reaching past a disposable address has percolated into the collective consciousness.

Anyway, I received a message from someone a few days ago asking me to forward it to a spamgourmet user -- the sender purportedly found out about the user on a geneaology website and thinks they're related, and wants to contact the user to ask some specific family-tree questions. Could it be fake? You bet, and I'm not going to do extensive research to try and find out, but, let me just say it passes the sniff test, and I've been doing this for a while.

Should I send it? I've never done that before. To send it, I'd need to look up the user's forwarding address and then forward the message. Simple to do, but not altogether clean-feeling.

I suppose I could also instruct the sender to try making up a new disposable address to send the message (assuming the one he/she was trying to use is expired), which might work, depending on the user's advanced mode settings (which I *could* check and see, but somehow that would feel even less appropriate).

Alternatives are to simply ignore the request (which I admittedly have done for other messages that did not pass the sniff test), or to respond to the sender saying I can't (won't) do it (and possibly invite additional pleas or discussion that I don't have time to respond to).

What do you think?

Josh

[kansaslawdog]

I think you should let the request go unanswered. The spamgourmet user in question has elected (a) to read messages sent to that disposable address (and either respond or not respond to them), (b) not to read such messages, or (c) to allow that disposable address to expire. Whatever the decision the spamgourmet user made, in my opinion, it should be honored.

Alternatively, you could simply respond that you do not perform the requested function.

[ferret]

Well I have been a lurker here for many years and a happy SG user, but this thread tempted me to come out from under the stone!

I think the fact that you are asking says that this is a case a bit far removed from the normal. If it is anything like my own experience, I can understand both why the request has been made to you and why the missing SG user cannot be got by the person who contacted you.

When I started hunting my family tree many years ago, I was wary of what I posted on the internet. I used quite a few disposable addresses [thank you SG] and many of the threads posted on family tree websites have gone quiet for years. Every so often one of them gets a hit, and I get a message to say that a new post has arrived on the thread. If I didnt keep the post number updated using advanced settings I would lose the messages. Possibly the missing SG'er hasn't done that, I would certainly want the message.

There are a number of possibilities other than that. The SGer may have died, or lost access to the protected address, or lost access to SG. I presume there is no way you would know if the account has been "active" without looking it up.

When I was trying to find people who I thought I was related to I went to many ends. I got ALL the phone directories from the neighbouring country and plotted every occurence of the relevant surname. Then rang each of them starting at the most likely area and working out. I got a hit eventually. I went to that country and spend days in the National Archives, searching Birth Certificate Registers for every occurance of the surname. Regularly. Then the same with Deaths, and Marriages. I went to the archives and copied the details of every entry in the Census of the name and played giant jigsaws with the birth records.

It got very obsessive. If somebody has found a genealogy website, and found an entry that might refer to a potential relative, and tried to contact then, and failed, and then taken the trouble to look up the email, and found it links back to SG, and found it is a dead end because of the way SG operates, then registered here so that they could contact josh, and then done so and set out why he is being asked to make a link, and josh is concerned enough to post here. What do I think? I think I can recognise the persistence of the searcher. I am pretty sure it would have to be a very determined spammer to go to this length!

Can I suggest a way forward that leaves it with the SGer? You can contact the missing SGer through the protected address. Why not send them an innocuous message informing them of the unusual nature of the request and asking if they wished to be given the details? If you get no response then you can assume that they are dead/lost log-in etc to either account or SG. If you get a response, then the SGer can take the initiative and either update the SG post count to get messages through or contact the person directly.

If it were me, on one of my genealogy site posting from years ago I would be really pleased to think that you had taken such steps on my behalf to help me out.

[John]

Don't do it. Just ignore it.

It's not your responsibility, and you have no way of knowing if the person requesting contact is legitimate. They could be lying, or have ulterior motives.

[boomschtick]

I'm with Ferret on this one....

Give the SGer the opportunity to see the message if they so choose, but don't forward it blindly.

[hutchinsfairy]

I don't think you could be faulted for asking the SG user themselves how they would like this handled. In fact I find it commendable that you are going to such lengths on their behalf. I would start by trying to identify if they are also a forum user and sending them a PM as this would feel less obtrusive to me. Failing that I would just email and ask.

[SysKoll]

I'd send a polite request: "A person claiming he does genealogy research is trying to get in touch with you through me, spamgourmet admin. Do you want me to forward you that person's email?"

[pprotus]

I'm a new SG user (as you can see from my join date), but personally I'd want to have the option. On the other hand, if I chose to ignore the sender, then I wouldn't want the sender to know that I'd screened the inquiry. Awkward situation. I think that maybe a message to me, from a SG admin (Josh?) to let me know that such an inquiry existed, would be the best compromise. Then I could agonize over the pros/cons myself, in the privacy of my home (and thus remove the dilemma from the shoulders of SG).

[ragingdragon]

I think the SGer deserves the chance to see the mail, and its not fair on you ( Josh ) or the SGer to have a back and forth mail thread for the same. I think u directly forwarding it to the user and NOT giving the sender a response would be best. The SGer gets a message, its not THAT much work for you, the sender either is legitimate, which is the user can discern, or has no idea whether the link got broken at your stage or at the SGer. That is, he doesn't even know if his purported spam messages was seen by any human eyes.