The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Financial Planning / Tax Strategies


Subject:  Re: A 2006 Invoice Date:  7/9/2013  9:36 PM
Author:  aj485 Number:  118833 of 124768

Part of the phishing scam--as it is with any other scam--is that the phisher pretends to be someone he's not--in this case "a company that the OP had done business with before." Since the OP's received original correspondence was to a physical address skimmable from the Internet, and not to a mailing address or an email address--either or both of which the legitimate furniture store would have had, also--phishing can't be so easily discounted.

I don't think that the OP said that the original correspondence was received at a physical addresss, not a mailing address (and for many people, they are one and the same). Additionally, given the number of websites that ask for (and get) e-mail addresses, I don't think that e-mail addresses are any 'safer' than a physical address. However, given that it costs $0.40 or so (depending on class and bulk status) to send snail mails, vs. $0.01 or less to send e-mails, I would be much more leery of something received at an e-mail address than at a physical address or mailing address.

A phone call to the store, or as OP plans to do, a letter to the store and not to the originator of the dun asking for the actual bill, would be a worthwhile check.

Actually, the OP should be replying to the originator of the dun. In this case, I believe it is the furniture store, but even if it's not the furniture store, not replying to the originator of the dun is ignoring a dunning notice, which could be injurious