Scott Harris wrote: > I wanted to stir up some conversation about spam laws, disclosure > and bulk emails/mailing lists. > > I have a user who subscribes to a few mailing lists and they have > recently started adding the following disclosure to the emails they > send: > > *************************************************** > > This message is sent in compliance of the new email bill section 301. > Under Bill S. 1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th US Congress. This > message cannot be considered Spam as long as we include the way to be > removed, Paragraph (a)(c) of S. 1618, further transmissions to you by > the sender of this email may be stopped at no cost to you by > UNSUBSCRIBING. > > *************************************************** > > > This, of course, causes rules to be triggered such as: > > Content analysis details: (10.1 points, 6.0 required) > > pts rule name description > ---- ---------------------- > -------------------------------------------------- > 2.8 SENT_IN_COMPLIANCE BODY: Claims compliance with spam > regulations > 0.7 NO_COST BODY: No such thing as a free lunch (3) > 0.6 OPT_IN_CAPS BODY: Talks about opting in (capitalized > version) > 2.7 BILL_1618 BODY: Claims compliance with Senate Bill > 1618 > 0.7 CANNOT_BE_SPAM BODY: Claims "cannot be considered spam" > 0.3 HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN BODY: HTML font color is unknown to us > 0.1 HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE BODY: HTML link text says "click here" > 1.2 MIME_HTML_MOSTLY BODY: Multipart message mostly text/html > MIME > 0.1 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message > 1.0 HTML_FONT_INVISIBLE BODY: HTML font color is same as > background > 0.5 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML > -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% > [score: 0.0000] > 3.0 BigEvilList_37 URI: Generated BigEvilList_37 > 1.4 DATE_IN_PAST_06_12 Date: is 6 to 12 hours before Received: > date > 0.0 CLICK_BELOW Asks you to click below > > The first 5 are the ones that really penalized this message. > > Aside from the obvious solution of whitelisting this domain, what are > the options to allow these, and future messages through? Bayes > clearly caught it as ham, but didn't negate enough of the other hits. > > Also, what are the potential future ramifications for SA as more and > more legit mailing list emailers start adding such verbage to > demonstrate their legitimacy? > > Scott > >
This block of text has been going around for nearly 3-4 years or more. It's not the same spam law that recently got signed for the US. The legit mailer using this SHOULD NOT be using this text. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
