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.