>-----Original Message----- >From: Geoff Soper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 11:57 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: harsh image rules > > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Hamie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 11:31 AM >>>To: Kenneth Porter >>>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: Re: harsh image rules >>> >>> >>>Kenneth Porter wrote: >>> >>>> --On Saturday, July 17, 2004 10:03 PM +0100 Geoff Soper >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Can anyone think why somebody would legitimately send a message >containing >>>>> '<img="http' to me? Bear in mind that any companies doing business >with me >>>>> won't be sending mail to the address being filtered i.e. >my personal >address. >>>> >>>> >>>> I can't think of a reason for someone outside your >>>organization to do so. >>>> >>> >>>Well... Not a reason, but the marketing teams where I work >>>seem awfully >>>keen on doing this... They want to send fancy html mails to >>>the customer >>>base, but don't want it to be too big (We virus check all >>>outbound email >>>as well as inbound & the CPU budget gets a real hammering when >>>the mail >>>is 200kB in size :). Also the tool they use doesn't go very fast when >the email size starts getting up... >>> >>>Anyway... The images are all on a web server somewhere & the >customers >mail client is expected to access them from there (Dabs does the same, >so do handango etc). >>> >>>I've warned them it's not a very good idea sa spammers like >doing this >too... But I'm not expecting them to listen... >>> >>>> I believe you can do this in Exchange, though, so that one can put >bulky images for a newsletter on the company server and >>>email just the >>>> HTML to internal recipients. In that narrow context the feature has >some utility. (Although I'd just put up a PDF and send a >>>link to that.) >>>> >> >> >> I may be misunderstanding but here goes: >> >> Web based linked images will be caught by SURBL. (Bigevil for those >still insane enough to use it) >> >> However I -think- what this thread is about is embedded >images sent with >the >> email? In which case I can see a rule being made for that, >as no legit >sender that I know would do that. >> >> HOWEVER, I'm sure their is legit mailers that may send this way. As a >matter >> of fact, I think I just got an email from my wife who uses >Apple Message >framework v552 and it does this. So it may need to be a ruleset with >metas >> for certain known mailers that do this. >> >> Not an easy thing. > >I think the thread has gone in the wrong direction slightly. I'm not >worried about embedded images as such, I'm concerned with >embedded images >where the image isn't part of the message, i.e. the image is >sourced from >the web. I think only spam and solicited commercial e-mail >would do this. >Any solicited commercial e-mail comes to an address other than >my personal >address, I make up a unique and identifiable address whenever a >organisation or company asks for my address. Hence I think I can safely >class anything containing '<img="http://' and addressed to my personal >address as spam. I think if my personal contacts send me >attached pictures >or use 'stationary' then the image might be embedded in HTML >but won't use >'http://' as the image is local. I was asking if anyone can >see why this >assumption might be unwise. > >Thanks, >Geoff >
In that case...NO! :) It will FP on pretty much any legit HTML newsletter. Including my recent rant about Victoria Secret and Fredricks of Holywood newsletters being caught by the standard SA rules! ;) --Chris
