On 2018-02-06 15:49, John Levine wrote:
In article <7e12d5ff-f770-b5db-f913-18dafcd03...@thedave.ca> you write:
Also URLs in mail headers, which is perhaps reasonable, except that
...many ESPs now put unsub URLs in the headers.
Are the results any more harmful than the same unsub URL in the foot (or
otherwise in the visible body of the message)?
Putting a URL in a List-Unsubscribe header is an entirely reasonable
thing to do, and lots of ESPs do it. Mail programs as creaky as alpine
and as zoomy as gmail recognize them and do reasonable things with them
that they can't do with URLs embedded in the message body.
Treating them as a spam sign is absurd unless you're stuck in the
1990s and consider everything from an ESP to be spam no matter what it
is.
I agree that it isn't a blanket spam sign, quite the opposite. But that
wasn't my point. Rather, my point is that when an unsubscribe URL is
already in the body, it won't hurt the sender at all to have a second
copy of a similar URL in the header. SpamCop seeing one URL (unsubscribe
in body) or two (plus the header) won't hurt the sender.
I am all for List-Unsubscribe headers and have been since the day I saw
my first one. At this point I'm moderately close to ramping up scoring
anything that appears to be list mail but lacks the List-Unsubscribe
header and I'd like to see one of the gorillas take a heavy hand here.
I understand that some senders are scared of making it too easy for
subscribers to unsubscribe, but those who feel they are entitled to send
mail to users just because they made unsubscribing harder than a typical
customer can handle are the exact ones that need to be blacklisted
indiscriminately and completely.
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
