However, it's very likely that a lot of senders are going to "play it safe" and include all the labeling (with the possible exception of Subject-line labeling, when the FTC gets around to defining it) in every message
One thing to keep in mind is what makes CAN-SPAM labeling different from, say, Senate Bill 1618 (or whatever): It's an *actual law* and not a proposed one that was never passed. No legit mailer has any reason to claim compliance with SB 1618, but *every legit commercial mailer* in the US has to comply with CAN-SPAM, and might reasonably consider stating such compliance.
Many of the EXCUSE_* rules in now SA may become less useful as a result.
Many of them already have scores below 1, because things like "You received this message because ____" can be either informative ("Oh, yeah, I *did* ask for updates on that product a year and a half ago!") or deceptive ("I signed up at one of your unnamed partner sites? Try another one, pal!").
I figure mentions of CAN-SPAM are likely to be more like these and less like Murkowski footers.
Certainly, let's create a rule for tracking and see what the GA comes up with once the disclaimers are common. If it turns out to be worth only 0.2 points, we're still ahead of where we were. But we shouldn't assume that anything with this verbiage has to be spam, and both scoring and description should reflect that.
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications <www.speed.net>
------------------------------------------------------- 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
