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 will stop sending you email. Yes, the site has scummy
practices but that is not spam by my definition.
Yes, under EU/UK that counts as spam because the regulations say that
the signer-upper must explicitly choose to receive e-mail from the
site, and by-default sign-in doesn't count as 'informed sign-in'.
Canadian law is the same, this is absolutely spam without any ambiguity.
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 opted into.
This would have to be blocked or allowed based on reputation. One would train
the message as spam in their Bayes database and allow trusted senders via
something like a domain whitelist, URI whitelist, or a whitelist_auth entry.
We are back to needing a curated WL based on something like DKIM. Alex just
made me aware of http://dkimwl.org/ which looks brilliant. Exactly lines up
with how I filter and what I have been wanted to do for a couple of years now.
A community-driven clearing house for trusted senders.
If this is done as well as the bozos who block Earthlink then it will be largely
useless. Who supervises the volunteers to keep them from being lazy, careless,
or politically biased?
{^_^}
