petition to sign

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Thanks for posting, this already happens in Ireland although I know the RFL is much higher over there in the first place. My 450 SEL is 31 years old so it would definately make a difference to me.
 
I've signed this already (name and address have to be entered), and received a reply asking to click a link to confirm. The reply source is below, so can anyone confirm it it what it should be please?



Delivered-To: ............
Received: by 10.143.99.12 with SMTP id b12cs10157wfm;
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.227.42.208])
by 10.227.42.208 with SMTP id t16mr4489584wbe.18.1313396278048 (num_hops = 1);
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.42.208 with SMTP id t16mr3237612wbe.18.1313396277019;
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from r1.mail.sccis.net (r1.mail.sccis.net [80.86.35.25])
by mx.google.com with SMTP id ge8si15188760wbb.143.2011.08.15.01.17.56;
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 80.86.35.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) client-ip=80.86.35.25;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 80.86.35.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) [email protected]
Received: (qmail 16637 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2011 07:51:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO dc2gdsweb002) (80.86.43.92)
by r1.mail.sccis.net with SMTP; 15 Aug 2011 07:51:14 -0000
Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by dc2gdsweb002 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0544EA20E6
for.............; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:51:00 +0100 (BST)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:50:59 +0100
From: [email protected]
To: ......................
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Subject: HM Government e-petitions: Email address confirmation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="--==_mimepart_4e48cfe3e980d_3b483fc2aa2ce1b8423918";
charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 
some of you might be interested in this......

petition

You've put a link asking people to click it without any explanation of what could be downloaded. Is it safe or unsafe? Better play safe and ignore whatever the petition is all about.
 
I had already signed it .
 
I've signed this already (name and address have to be entered), and received a reply asking to click a link to confirm. The reply source is below, so can anyone confirm it it what it should be please?



Delivered-To: ............
Received: by 10.143.99.12 with SMTP id b12cs10157wfm;
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.227.42.208])
by 10.227.42.208 with SMTP id t16mr4489584wbe.18.1313396278048 (num_hops = 1);
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.42.208 with SMTP id t16mr3237612wbe.18.1313396277019;
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from r1.mail.sccis.net (r1.mail.sccis.net [80.86.35.25])
by mx.google.com with SMTP id ge8si15188760wbb.143.2011.08.15.01.17.56;
Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 80.86.35.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) client-ip=80.86.35.25;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 80.86.35.25 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) [email protected]
Received: (qmail 16637 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2011 07:51:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO dc2gdsweb002) (80.86.43.92)
by r1.mail.sccis.net with SMTP; 15 Aug 2011 07:51:14 -0000
Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by dc2gdsweb002 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0544EA20E6
for.............; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:51:00 +0100 (BST)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:50:59 +0100
From: [email protected]
To: ......................
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Subject: HM Government e-petitions: Email address confirmation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="--==_mimepart_4e48cfe3e980d_3b483fc2aa2ce1b8423918";
charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I think if it arrived shortly after, and was addressed to exactly your email address (which you removed) coupled with the addresses all seem to tie up - I'd be happy this was legitimate.

If you are not comfortable with it - try re-signing the petition (i.e. pretend you did not get the email) to see if you get sent another and compare...?
 
ive just signed it...
and i have a 1973 MGB GT:eek:
 
Signed
 
I think if it arrived shortly after, and was addressed to exactly your email address (which you removed) coupled with the addresses all seem to tie up - I'd be happy this was legitimate.

If you are not comfortable with it - try re-signing the petition (i.e. pretend you did not get the email) to see if you get sent another and compare...?

Thanks John. It was the reference to Mr. Google (Received: from mr.google.com ([10.227.42.208]) that made me wonder. Is there anything that Google doesn't have it's finger in? The next Murdoch waiting to happen!
 
Thanks John. It was the reference to Mr. Google (Received: from mr.google.com ([10.227.42.208]) that made me wonder. Is there anything that Google doesn't have it's finger in? The next Murdoch waiting to happen!

I noticed that - but that could just be a relevant name (like 'mail relay' or 'mail responder').

Maybe Mr Clutch are diversifying... :D but they will soon hear from Google's lawyers.

I normally go by what is hidden in the hyperlinks (for any email I am checking out).

If you look at what you pasted in, some of the information is underlined in blue. This is a hyperlink which means within that text is code which will perform a function.

The first bit in blue ( <[email protected]> ) has the following function underneath:

mailto:[email protected] - which as you can see, is not quite the same. However, provided these two pieces of information match at least at the domain name level (i.e. direct.gov.uk in this case), it should be genuine (I say should because it is possible for this to be engineered so that despite the legit address, it could still be sent to the nasty lot - if you have Hotmail or Yahoo etc. and logon to your email via a website, this is not likely to be the case).
 
Signed up. A couple of observations though.

Reintroducing the rolling cut-off (and at the original 25 years rather than 30) was a Conservative election pledge, believe it or not. I suspect it was sacrificed as part of the Coalition compropmises.

Can't help thinking that the more support the petition gets, the less likely it is to be successful, as the government will be able to demonstrate the potential revenue loss if it attracts the requisite 100,000 signatures to spark a Commons debate.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom