Back in the day of the IETF ASRG, I think we said it’s spam if the user calls it spam. In other words - it’s in the eye of the beholder. For legal purposes UBE, and later UCE, were defined with the legal speak.
Regards, Damon Sauer On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM <mailop-requ...@mailop.org> wrote: > Send mailop mailing list submissions to > mailop@mailop.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > mailop-requ...@mailop.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > mailop-ow...@mailop.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of mailop digest..." > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score (Michael Rathbun) > 2. Re: [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.) > 3. Re: Weird blocking by outlook.com (S3150) (Michael Peddemors) > 4. Re: [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score (Michael Rathbun) > 5. Re: [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score (Jay Hennigan) > 6. Re: [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score (Jay Hennigan) > 7. Re: [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score (Al Iverson) > 8. Re: [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score (Michael Wise) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Michael Rathbun <m...@honet.com> > To: Andrew C Aitchison <and...@aitchison.me.uk> > Cc: "mailop@mailop.org" <mailop@mailop.org> > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:15:51 -0500 > Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 07:40:55 +0100 (BST), Andrew C Aitchison via mailop > <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > >You can't use engagement like that. > > Everyday experience with a large number of volume mailer clients says > that, in > the general case, you not only can, you must. There have been public > statements by staff at major providers to this effect. They have noticed > that > a major cost is imposed by accepting, scanning and storing email for > abandoned > or inactive accounts. They tend to put systems in place to reduce those > costs. > > >I consider the weekly/monthly email from a clothes store that gives me > >a discount for being on their email list to be SPAM. > > Spam being unsolicited broadcast email, I would say that if you agree to > receive it, it cannot be spam. This definition has held up well over the > twenty-five years I've been involved in the industry. > > >I consider the annual email from my old school HAM. > >I read this but never reply, and it doesn't have cookies or other > phone-home > >features, so the list maintainers can only process unsubscribe requests > >and bounces to keep the list clean. > > An edge case, to be sure. I am on some lists that are extremely > intermittent. > They are also guaranteed to be made up of real people who asked for the > email. > Bounce and unsubscribe processing, and the occasional review of deferrals > for > "account over quota" should keep the mailer out of trouble. > > >There is an email marketeers "rule" about frequent mail shots to keep > >engagement up. I see this as a good definition of the junk mail sender. > > In such cases, the recipients may decide to revoke their permission. If > mailing continues after unsubscribe, then the sender is a spammer, possibly > due solely to incompetence. > > mdr > -- > "There are no laws here, only agreements." > -- Masahiko > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitch...@isipp.com> > To: Michael Rathbun via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 09:06:40 -0600 > Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score > > > Spam being unsolicited broadcast email, I would say that if you agree to > > receive it, it cannot be spam. This definition has held up well over the > > twenty-five years I've been involved in the industry. > > Indeed, and it was formalized in item (2) in the Vixie/Mitchell defintion > of spam, which was promulgated ~20 years ago: > > “An electronic message is “spam” IF: (1) the recipient’s personal identity > and context are > irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other > potential recipients; > AND (2) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and > still-revocable > permission for it to be sent; AND (3) the transmission and reception of > the message > appears to the recipient to give a disproportionate benefit to the sender.” > > Interesting sidenote: While this definition was originally posted on the > MAPS website, lo those ~20 years ago, I note that it is now posted on > thousands of sites. > > Anne > > --- > > Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law > Dean of Cybersecurity & Cyberlaw, Lincoln Law School of San Jose > CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy > SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification > Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) > Legislative Consultant > GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant > Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange > Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop > Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute > Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) > Happy Resident: Boulder, Colorado > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Michael Peddemors <mich...@linuxmagic.com> > To: mailop@mailop.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:31:24 -0700 > Subject: Re: [mailop] Weird blocking by outlook.com (S3150) > On 2019-08-23 12:45 a.m., Benoit Panizzon via mailop wrote: > > 157.161.0.0/16 is a 'legacy', pre RIPE range which is exempt from the > > RIPE requirement to register customer allocations. > > Just because it is exempt, doesn't mean you can't take the opportunity > to be a good netizen, and operate a 'rwhois' service across your > network, or at least SWIP it. > > Your legitimate customers will thank you. > > > > > So for privacy reasons we have decided not to register our customers > > using this ranges @ RIPE. Anyway we mostly have businesses customers in > > this range. > > You should allow your customers to make the choice on whether they wish > to advertise their operational control over the IP(s) they have been > delegated. > > > Whole of 157.161.0.0/16 is included in the SNDS monitoring. I don't see > > any major problem there. We haven a customer running an ESP service, > > but also in his ip range, the complaint rate is < 0.1% > > > > Out of this range, our email platform uses 157.161.12.0/23 > > And of course, there is no reason your don't SWIP or 'rwhois' your /23 > so that others can see that the activity in the surrounding space > doesnt' have the same ownership or behavior as the ESP's IP space might > have. > > > It's a typical 'end user' platform for our enduser internet access > > customers. Webmail, IMAP Mailboxes. We also operate whitelabel email > > services for other ISP. Each one with it's own dedicated ip range. > > Just saying.. > > If it isn't clear on who the responsible party is, or when they started > using the IP Space, expect that activity from it will be treated with a > higher level of suspicion. > > -- > "Catch the Magic of Linux..." > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. > Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic > A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca > "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada > > This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. > Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely > those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Michael Rathbun <m...@honet.com> > To: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitch...@isipp.com> > Cc: Michael Rathbun via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:19:10 -0500 > Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 09:06:40 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop" > <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > >> Spam being unsolicited broadcast email, I would say that if you agree to > >> receive it, it cannot be spam. This definition has held up well over > the > >> twenty-five years I've been involved in the industry. > > > >Indeed, and it was formalized in item (2) in the Vixie/Mitchell defintion > of spam, which was promulgated ~20 years ago: > > > >“An electronic message is “spam” IF: (1) the recipient’s personal > identity and context are > >irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other > potential recipients; > >AND (2) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, > and still-revocable > >permission for it to be sent; AND (3) the transmission and reception of > the message > >appears to the recipient to give a disproportionate benefit to the > sender.” > > > >Interesting sidenote: While this definition was originally posted on the > MAPS website, lo those ~20 years ago, I note that it is now posted on > thousands of sites. > > At airmail.net back in those antediluvian days, we did policy enforcement > based on the 'B' in UBE being "Bulk". When I spoke to someone whom we had > terminated for sending UBE, he scoffed: "Bulk!? I only sent 11,000. BULK > would be 100,000 or more." > > Consequently, I looted the world of network terminology to distinguish > Unicast, Multicast, and Broadcast as basic classifications of messages, > and we > then declared the 'B' in UBE to stand for Broadcast. So, you only have to > send > two substantially identical messages to people who didn't give you explicit > permission for us to hose you off the deck for spamming. This was in 1996. > > mdr > -- > "There will be more spam." > -- Paul Vixie > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jay Hennigan <mailop-l...@keycodes.com> > To: mailop@mailop.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:11:59 -0700 > Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score > On 8/22/19 13:35, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote: > > > In '1984' there's Newspeak. Since 1995, there's been Spamspeak. > Clarity in > > discussion is to be avoided at any (reasonable) cost. > > Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing > appearance of the spammer term "double opt-in" in recent posts instead > of "confirmed opt-in". > > > -- > Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net > Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 > 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jay Hennigan <mailop-l...@keycodes.com> > To: mailop@mailop.org > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:28:49 -0700 > Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score > On 8/22/19 23:40, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote: > > > You can't use engagement like that. > > > > I consider the weekly/monthly email from a clothes store that gives me > > a discount for being on their email list to be SPAM. > > If you willingly gave then your email address for that purpose, it is by > no means spam. Not even close. You subscribed to their list. In > consideration for the discount you agreed to receive their > advertisements. Classifying this as spam is simply wrong. Spam is > *unsolicited* bulk email. You solicited this email for your own > financial gain. > > (By the way, there's an app for that. Mailinator is your friend. If the > sender has caught on and blocked mailinator, a freemail account you > never open works just as well for exactly this as well as forced > registration sites and the like.) > > > I consider the annual email from my old school HAM. > > Did you sign up for the annual email or provide your address to the > school expecting that they would email you? If so, not spam. > > It's about consent, not content (or frequency of mailing). > > > I read this but never reply, and it doesn't have cookies or other > > phone-home > > features, so the list maintainers can only process unsubscribe requests > > and bounces to keep the list clean. > > I very rarely open remote images and never pre-fetch DNS so the embedded > spyware in much bulk email these days isn't a factor. > > > There is an email marketeers "rule" about frequent mail shots to keep > > engagement up. I see this as a good definition of the junk mail sender. > > It isn't even a factor. Did you agree to receive mailings of that nature > from that sender or not? That's the only real consideration. > > -- > Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net > Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 > 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Al Iverson <aiver...@wombatmail.com> > To: mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:35:23 -0500 > Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:18 PM Jay Hennigan via mailop > <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > > > On 8/22/19 13:35, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote: > > > > > In '1984' there's Newspeak. Since 1995, there's been Spamspeak. > Clarity in > > > discussion is to be avoided at any (reasonable) cost. > > > > Spamspeak is alive and well on this very list. Witness the ongoing > > appearance of the spammer term "double opt-in" in recent posts instead > > of "confirmed opt-in". > > It strikes me as shitty that when faced with the knowledge that > somebody has implemented confirmed opt-in, you choose to attack them > for calling it double opt-in, instead of being pleased that they've > implemented the practice. > > > -- > al iverson // wombatmail // chicago > http://www.aliverson.com > http://www.spamresource.com > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Michael Wise <michael.w...@microsoft.com> > To: "mailop@mailop.org" <mailop@mailop.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 18:26:23 +0000 > Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score > > > > /applause! > > > > Aloha, > > Michael. > > -- > > *Michael J Wise* > Microsoft Corporation| Spam Analysis > > "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed." > > Got the Junk Mail Reporting Tool > <http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=18275> ? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mailop <mailop-boun...@mailop.org> On Behalf Of Michael Rathbun via > mailop > Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 9:19 AM > To: Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitch...@isipp.com> > Cc: Michael Rathbun via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> > Subject: Re: [mailop] [ext] Re: Return Path / Sender Score > > > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 09:06:40 -0600, "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop" > > <mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > > > > >> Spam being unsolicited broadcast email, I would say that if you agree > > >> to receive it, it cannot be spam. This definition has held up well > > >> over the twenty-five years I've been involved in the industry. > > > > > >Indeed, and it was formalized in item (2) in the Vixie/Mitchell defintion > of spam, which was promulgated ~20 years ago: > > > > > >“An electronic message is “spam” IF: (1) the recipient’s personal > > >identity and context are irrelevant because the message is equally > > >applicable to many other potential recipients; AND (2) the recipient > > >has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and still-revocable > > >permission for it to be sent; AND (3) the transmission and reception of > > >the message appears to the recipient to give a disproportionate benefit > > >to the sender.” > > > > > >Interesting sidenote: While this definition was originally posted on the > MAPS website, lo those ~20 years ago, I note that it is now posted on > thousands of sites. > > > > At airmail.net back in those antediluvian days, we did policy enforcement > based on the 'B' in UBE being "Bulk". When I spoke to someone whom we had > terminated for sending UBE, he scoffed: "Bulk!? I only sent 11,000. BULK > would be 100,000 or more." > > > > Consequently, I looted the world of network terminology to distinguish > Unicast, Multicast, and Broadcast as basic classifications of messages, and > we then declared the 'B' in UBE to stand for Broadcast. So, you only have > to send two substantially identical messages to people who didn't give you > explicit permission for us to hose you off the deck for spamming. This was > in 1996. > > > > mdr > > -- > > "There will be more spam." > > -- Paul Vixie > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mailop mailing list > > mailop@mailop.org > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchilli.nosignal.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmailop&data=02%7C01%7Cmichael.wise%40microsoft.com%7C3eb3a8982eea4e5dad3a08d727e60615%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637021741214020517&sdata=yUIGA5YuH7BVL5wRoUJ1fXLC5w63bHKvZhGLK6hoUxw%3D&reserved=0 > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
