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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to