> Chris Santerre wrote: >> >>I may be misunderstanding but here goes: >> >>Web based linked images will be caught by SURBL. (Bigevil for those still >>insane enough to use it) >> >>However I -think- what this thread is about is embedded images sent with >> the >>email? In which case I can see a rule being made for that, as no legit >>sender that I know would do that. >> >> >> > > Ah... I thought it was the other way round... Because of the comment > > ++Can anyone think why somebody would legitimately send a message > ++containing '<img="http' to me? Bear in mind that any companies doing > business > ++with me > > which indicates (To me anyway) that an image is going to be loaded via > http (ie.. not embedded, but ona web server somewhere). Which to me is > a GREAT way to detect who gets & opens their email, if the URL is > encoded with a unique key... I was under the impression that this was a > known & not uncommon spammer trick...
You're right, I was talking about people embedding an externally hosted image in an HTML e-mail, not embedding an attached image. Geoff
