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.


Reply via email to