Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

If you pick up the snail mail equivalent, you either have spam without address or a mail with someone else's address. We put the spam where it belongs, and return the other unopened. We make no exception to e-mail, because they are mail after all. The RFC should be amended. If not, we still

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

On 2018-02-09 (14:26 MST), Joseph Brennan wrote: > > RFC 822, RFC 822 hasn't been valid for nearly two decades. The current RFC is 5322. "The only required header fields are the origination date field and the originator address field(s). All other header fields are

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

Objection. RFC 822, section A.3.1 "Minimum required" shows two alternatives of the minimum. The one on the left has Date and From and Bcc, and the Bcc has no address in it. The other one on the right has Date and From and a To field with an address in it. Now read it again: C.3.4. DESTINATION

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

On 2018-02-08 (08:23 MST), David Jones wrote: > > 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

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

If you agreed to receive news from X, and receive them via mass-mailer Y, be prepared to also receive from Z via Y, where Z is third party on behalf of X or Y. Morale: when you agree to X, remember to opt out to their third parties. Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 16:23,

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

On 20180208 23:24, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 09.02.2018 um 01:20 schrieb jdow: 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