Re: [mailop] Spam to "published" address?

[Matthew Black]

(ii) address in a manner from which consent to receive email of the type 
transmitted may be reasonably implied.

I don't believe that Usenet (network news) grants consent for advertisers or 
information providers to contact you. Craigslist makes it very clear before 
posting with their opt-in checkbox.

I've seen a huge increase in UCE from major "legitimate" deliverability 
companies. I suspect the push to adopt DMARC is a ploy to legitimize the modern 
Spamford Wallace type companies (e.g., Marketo, et al.). No disrespect to 
longtime RFC contributors, as the guys in suits have taken over.


I hereby revoke all permissions from companies that do not have a confirmed 
opt-in e-mail response from me that explicitly grants permission to receive 
marketing and informational messages from any party reading all or part of this 
posting/message or just the headers.

matthew black
First Amendment: comments made herein belong solely to the author and may not 
convey policies or opinions of his employer.


-Original Message-
From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of Jay Hennigan
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 10:57 AM
To: mailop
Subject: [mailop] Spam to "published" address?

I've been getting an increasing amount of spam to various of my 
addresses some of which have not been been actively used for some time. 
The amount of spam received is kicking upward fairly rapidly.

All of this spam is sent by a third-party, not the company whose primary 
domain appears in the "From".

The content of this spam seems to be somewhat related to my interests in 
most cases but definitely not from anyone from whom I've given permission.

In investigating this third-party mailer I came across this interesting 
policy:

   "Unsolicited Email" is defined as email sent to persons other than:
   (i) persons with whom you have an existing business relationship, OR
   (ii) persons who have consented to the receipt of such email,
   including publishing or providing their email address in a manner
   from which consent to receive email of the type transmitted may be
   reasonably implied.

It's section (ii) that concerns me. Scraping addresses from Usenet, 
blogs, comments, or subscribed discussion lists could easily fall under 
"Publishing", could it not?

What is the opinion of this group, is this policy that of a legitimate 
ESP or a garden-variety spammer?

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Spam to "published" address?

[Ian Eiloart]

> On 15 Oct 2015, at 19:56, Jay Hennigan  wrote:
> 
> 
> And, I've never seen language like "publishing implies consent" in the policy 
> of any legitimate ESP.

The ESP’s policy isn’t relevant. What’s relevant are the laws in your 
jurisdiction. 

In the EU, there are two conditions that permit sending marketing (including 
charity, political, and pressure group campaigning) email to personal email 
addresses. First an existing business relationship. Second explicit permission. 
It doesn’t matter how the permission is expressed, but it must be expressed. 
So, publishing a call for business proposals might qualify, I suppose: top tip, 
give a deadline if you’re doing that! But you’ve said you aren’t. So this is a 
red herring. Even then, EVERY email must carry an easy to use mechanism to 
opt-out. That means a visible link, in my view.

Anyway, if you haven’t published a request for emails, then this clause isn’t 
relevant. They’re spamming you. 

 

-- 
Ian Eiloart
Postmaster, University of Sussex
+44 (0) 1273 87-3148

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Spam to "published" address?

[Al Iverson]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Ian Eiloart  wrote:

> The ESP’s policy isn’t relevant. What’s relevant are the laws in your 
> jurisdiction.

I wish that was more true. The number of legal actions taken by
relevant authorities in...all jurisdictions total that I can think of,
seems to be very low. Yet the amount of spam received isn't very low.

--
Al Iverson - Minneapolis - (312) 275-0130
Simple DNS Tools since 2008: xnnd.com
www.spamresource.com & aliverson.com

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop