On 20180208 23:24, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.02.2018 um 01:20 schrieb jdow:
On 20180208 07:23, David Jones wrote:
On 02/07/2018 06:28 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018, at 15:52, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Technically, you asked for the email and they have a valid opt-out
process that
If you agreed to receive news from X, and receive them via mass-mailer Y, be
prepared to also receive from Z via Y, where Z is third party on behalf of X or
Y. Morale: when you agree to X, remember to opt out to their third parties.
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 16:23, Davi
On 2018-02-08 (08:23 MST), David Jones wrote:
>
> But how can you tell the difference based on content then? You can't. Two
> different senders could send the exact same email and one could be spam from
> tricking the recipient to opt-in and another could be ham the recipient
> consciously op
Objection. RFC 822, section A.3.1 "Minimum required" shows two alternatives
of the minimum. The one on the left has Date and From and Bcc, and the Bcc
has no address in it. The other one on the right has Date and From and a To
field with an address in it.
Now read it again:
C.3.4. DESTINATION
On 2018-02-09 (14:26 MST), Joseph Brennan wrote:
>
> RFC 822,
RFC 822 hasn't been valid for nearly two decades.
The current RFC is 5322.
"The only required header fields are the origination date field and the
originator address field(s). All other header fields are syntactically
optional."
If you pick up the snail mail equivalent, you either have spam without address
or a mail with someone else's address. We put the spam where it belongs, and
return the other unopened.
We make no exception to e-mail, because they are mail after all.
The RFC should be amended. If not, we still rej