On 8/20/2014 6:40 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
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.
Do they have the consent of the owner of the domain?
How is this a misdirected email?
#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.
Sounds like spam to me... I see a lot of the political spams and I
would be surprise if they have consent. Reach out to them and ask them
for the provenance of the email address for their list if you are bored.
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.
Thanks!
