> > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Geoff Soper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 11:57 AM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: harsh image rules >> >>I think the thread has gone in the wrong direction slightly. I'm not >>worried about embedded images as such, I'm concerned with >>embedded images >>where the image isn't part of the message, i.e. the image is >>sourced from >>the web. I think only spam and solicited commercial e-mail >>would do this. >>Any solicited commercial e-mail comes to an address other than >>my personal >>address, I make up a unique and identifiable address whenever a >>organisation or company asks for my address. Hence I think I can safely >>class anything containing '<img="http://' and addressed to my personal >>address as spam. I think if my personal contacts send me >>attached pictures >>or use 'stationary' then the image might be embedded in HTML >>but won't use >>'http://' as the image is local. I was asking if anyone can >>see why this >>assumption might be unwise. > > In that case...NO! :) > > It will FP on pretty much any legit HTML newsletter. Including my recent > rant about Victoria Secret and Fredricks of Holywood newsletters being > caught by the standard SA rules! ;) >
But I'm in the position where anything I've subscribed to, any message from a company I deal with, anything relating to a website I interact with goes to a unique and identifiable address which isn't scanned for spam but can easily be routed to /dev/null if they start abusing that address. Hence only messages from private individuals come to my SA scanned personal address and I don't think my ruthless '<img="http://' rule plan would catch any of their messages. Can anyone think why a message from a private individual would ever contain '<img="http://' ? I hope I'm beginning to make sense? Thanks, Geoff
