>-----Original Message----- >From: Geoff Soper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 12:26 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: harsh image rules > > >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Geoff Soper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 11:57 AM >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: RE: harsh image rules >>> >>>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. >> >> 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! ;) >> > >But I'm in the position where anything I've subscribed to, any message >from a company I deal with, anything relating to a website I >interact with >goes to a unique and identifiable address which isn't scanned >for spam but >can easily be routed to /dev/null if they start abusing that address. >Hence only messages from private individuals come to my SA scanned >personal address and I don't think my ruthless '<img="http://' >rule plan >would catch any of their messages. >Can anyone think why a message from a private individual would ever >contain '<img="http://' ? > >I hope I'm beginning to make sense? > >Thanks, >Geoff
Sure can...and I hate these! Incredimail, kornet , smileycentral, and a bunch of web based emails. I see your point now. *you* could do this, but on a gateway system for a company I would not recommend it. I say write the rule and score it at .01 and see how it goes. --Chris
