> I would take issue with the "relatively respectable" part: DoubleClick > is infamous for what many consider invasion of privacy in their > aggressive use of cookies and "web bugs" to track people's web-surfing.
Well, I did say "relatively". While DoubleClick is indeed slimy, anyone familiar with the banner ad industry knows that there are, and have always been, many companies that are *far* less respectable. > In any case that "remove" URL looks like a revenue-generating ad link. > Clicking on it will present you with an ad, give DoubleClick some > tracking information about you (and a whole lot more information as you > continue to surf if you have cookies enabled), and will cause > DoubleClick to pay a few cents to the spammer for the referral. Agreed, I doubt DoubleClick knows anything about this. For that matter, I'm wondering if ING Direct knows anything about it. I've never seen them stoop to spamming before. I'll bet someone who runs a site that is a DoubleClick member is sending this spam with their adcode so that they're the one who gets a few cents any time someone clicks on it. > I think that a doubleclick.net URL embedded in an email should be a very > strong indicator of spam. I agree - one exception might be users who are DoubleClick clients/sponsors and receive email from them legitimately, but they would probably need to whitelist it anyway. -- michael moncur mgm at starlingtech.com http://www.starlingtech.com/ "Of those who say nothing, few are silent." -- Thomas Neill _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
