numbnuts
Legendary Member
- Location
- Gone over the hill and far away
Never had one of these before
The header data seems to be useful in know instantly it's a scam, in this case. They would not send it to "undisclosed recipients", you only do that if you are sending to multiple people. And the sender isn't "...gov.uk"Never trust the header data.
Is that the one via paypal, from the council?And I am due a big refund from the tax that I haven't paid!
Send them an email they have website, see if they know someone is scamming using their name.
https://www.cartakeback.com/
The header data seems to be useful in know instantly it's a scam, in this case. They would not send it to "undisclosed recipients", you only do that if you are sending to multiple people. And the sender isn't "...gov.uk"
So definitely a scam. Note that both those things could be corrected in a scam. Being right would be no proof of legitimacy but being wrong proves it a scam/spam/phishing.
You can trust the "received:" field inserted by your mail provider, which are very useful in identifying a scam.You know this isn't a rebuttal of my statement, right?
Don't you remember THIS THREAD with an almost identical scenario?Radio 4 PM had a tragic story at about 5.45 last night - a retired programmer aged 67 whose wife had died suddenly leaving him terribly lonely. He went on a Russian dating site and fell for a woman who scammed him out of £80,000 before he realised she was a fraudster when she failed to arrive at Gatwick. The man sounded absolutely broken.
Nope. It was supposed to be from the Inland Revenue!Is that the one via paypal, from the council?