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