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 reject on common sense. Our mail, our rules. R On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 22:26, Joseph Brennan wrote: > 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 > >A message must contain at least one destination address field. >"To" and "CC" are required to contain at least one address. > A.3.1 clarifies that the minimum required is either Bcc or To, both of which > are destination fields, and that if the destination field is To, then To must > contain an address. > In section 4.5.3 it states that Bcc contents are not included in copies sent, > which leaves a transmitted message with just Date and From, the state which > the plaintiff claims is not compliant. > -- Joseph Brennan
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 syntactically optional." -- 'Witches just aren't like that,' said Magrat. 'We live in harmony with the great cycles of Nature, and do no harm to anyone, and it's wicked of them to say we don't. We ought to fill their bones with hot lead.'
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 A message must contain at least one destination address field. "To" and "CC" are required to contain at least one address. A.3.1 clarifies that the minimum required is either Bcc or To, both of which are destination fields, and that if the destination field is To, then To must contain an address. In section 4.5.3 it states that Bcc contents are not included in copies sent, which leaves a transmitted message with just Date and From, the state which the plaintiff claims is not compliant. -- Joseph Brennan
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 > consciously opted into. That wasn't the question you asked. Is it spam and how do you mark it as spam are entirely different question and different issues. -- Gehm's Corollary to Clarke's law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
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, 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. -- David Jones
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 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?
*lol* who supervises the companies?
Perhaps nobody as Facebook, Google, et al seem to prove all too thoroughly.
Maybe we need a meta-trust monitor on the monitors. But, then, who trusts which
meta-trust monitor? The common thing with "community-driven" this and that is
the lack of people who actually working for a living who spend time feeding data
to the effort. So it ends up biased really quickly. The advantage in that regard
to having a Giggle, Facebunk, or little-burdy-told-me is they are treading on
monopoly ground. So if they get too rough with their biases it is theoretically
possible the government (who trusts it?) could be pressured into doing something
about it using the monopoly arm-twist maneuver.
It's all an unholy mess no matter how you figure it. Some messes are worse than
others. I read "community-driven" and started imagining OWS and ANTIFA in
effective control of that community and what results we'd see.
{^_^}
