Cashier’s checks certainly are a red banner. Providing to offer additional money compared to the real cost of the item is an enormous, big, blazing, unmistakeable red flag.
Giving These people your name and mailing address is just about the thing that is worst you could do; do you realize exactly what identification theft is? Well, maybe maybe not the stupidest thing… that would be really accepting and depositing the cashier’s check, that is simply planning to jump two to three weeks later on and then leave you keeping the case.
CL is truly achieving this precise thing now (anonymizing mail both in guidelines) & most of the responses you can get have a hyperlink at the end you are able to click to mark a response as “annoying”, “spam” or “scam”.
- Jik Post writer March 28, 2013
Yes, I said that already in a up-date at the top the publishing.
It’s being implemented but CL hasn’t made both s email protected. In the body if I responded back, my email is exposed to them but I can’t ever see their email unless they give it to me. We tested it on two CL reports because We couldn’t respond at all with Yahoo in accordance with Outlook, i possibly could respond but nonetheless couldn’t begin to see the target. We tested having a close buddy; We asked her to answer my post. She saw my target when we responded to her answer e-mail. Sucks. Anybody understand method surrounding this?
- Jik Post writer April 5, 2013
When I attempted it down not long ago, it absolutely was undoubtedly anonymized both methods.
I recently attempted it once again, and once again it absolutely was anonymized both in guidelines.
Maybe they will haven’t rolled it down to every person yet. Or maybe it is malfunctioning somehow. Or maybe you might be confused. Continue reading