If you agreed to receive news from X, and receive them via mass-mailer Y, be 
prepared to also receive from Z via Y, where Z is third party on behalf of X or 
Y. Morale: when you agree to X, remember to opt out to their third parties.

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 16:23, David Jones <djo...@ena.com> 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. -- David Jones

Reply via email to