On 2014-08-20 14:54, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
I follow Chris Santere's definition: Spam is about Consent not Content.
I follow a capitalist view that doing business with a company is
implied consent (I usually follow a rule similar to some legal
precedence where you have to have done RECENT business with them, say
1-2 years at max).
So with that simple set of rules set, here's my interpretation:
#1, not spam. Clear implied consent. Someone hired them and gave
them the email address.
#2, not spam ASSUMING it's a real paystub. Again, Someone hired
them and gave them the email address. If it's a fake paystub, it's
just a phish which is a type of spam.
If we're talking strict consent, none of these have the consent of the
owner of the mailbox -- The recipient doesn't do business with these
senders, it's misdirected rather than malicious.
But the results are the same for this recipient.
#3, spam. unsubscribe is irrelevant. Unless you've written an email
to the candidate or signed a petition to them with your email address,
etc. they have no consent to contact you. And blacklist the URL.
And political party has no bearing.
#4, ""
#3 and #4 probably both think they have consent, the recipients in
question receive a ton of misdirected/typo'd junk, I believe that these
were likely signed up by someone, just not the owner of the address in
question.
And while I personally agree that it's all about consent, I'm far more
careful with masscheck corpus collections.
https://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/HandClassifiedCorpora seems to
agree, it requests we not include "Spam Sent via Legitimate Services",
and these seem to fit that category.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
