On 08-02-18 16:33, Giovanni Bechis wrote: > On 02/08/18 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. >> > dkimwl.org looks promising, but tell them their https cert has expired. > Giovanni >
Also, they refer to the TOU for acceptable usage, but both /terms and
/license have a 404.
Kind regards,
Tom
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
