Re: "Legit Spammer"? in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18461752 en Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:00:58 EDT Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:00:58 EDT Re: "Legit Spammer"? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18464657 anon : Just use a garbage email to sign for those, thats what I do.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18464657 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:31:30 EDT Re: "Legit Spammer"? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18464881 TheWickerMan :
said by dadkins See Profile :

Uhm... WTF is a "Legit Spammer"?

Same thing as an honest politician, I suppose.

In other words, an oxymoron.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18464881 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 09:31:21 EDT Re: "Legit Spammer"? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18463698 quatrix : The majority of sites don't do anything evil with your email address, but it only takes one to deliver a ton of spam. Try BugMeNot.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18463698 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:22:07 EDT Re: "Legit Spammer"? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18462330 swhx7 :
said by MJL :

I think what they mean by images and scripts being guaranteed is that the mailbox provider won't filter the text of the message to remove them before they even hit the user's mailbox. That seems reasonable to me on the face of it.
That's what I was referring to. I thought it was obvious. Browsers do have an option to turn off all images, but I've never met anyone who actually used it.

Yahoo mail, for example, has an option in the email settings labeled "do not retrieve remote images referenced in emails" or similar. According to the article, and the company's website, the email provider overrides this user rule for the "certified" senders.

And I disagree with your judgment that it's acceptable. It's legal of course, as they're entitled to offer their email service on whatever terms they want. It is reprehensible though, because it's clearly contrary to account-holders' preferences. It's also deceptive: last time I looked, Yahoo at least did not disclose any exceptions to honoring users's preferences.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18462330 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:49:30 EDT Re: "Legit Spammer"? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18461752 ltjordan : Amen. They can't stop the spam so they might as well get paid for their troubles. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18461752 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:59:28 EDT Re: "Legit Spammer"? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18461350 newview : Grrrrr . . . . send me spam . . . and it gets reported, I don't really care if you're on AOL's "Legit Spammer" list or not.

In fact . . . I'll probably diligently research and report any and all related URLs, off-site hosted cgi_bin scripts, credit processing affiliates and anything else I can find out of any "Legit Spammer" junk.

If AOL says your legit . . . that means I'll be looking over it with a fine-tooth comb.
--

Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18461350 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:49:09 EDT Re: "Legit Spammer"? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18461247 RARPSL :
said by MJL :

There's no way technically to override a user's settings in the web browser or other user agent if the user says "don't display images" or "don't display images from 3rd party servers".

I think what they mean by images and scripts being guaranteed is that the mailbox provider won't filter the text of the message to remove them before they even hit the user's mailbox. That seems reasonable to me on the face of it.
Normally, if I have the "do not display" switch activated, I will get a place-holder image displayed in lieu of the actual image (which will not be "uselessly" fetched [since it is not going to be displayed] thus preventing the user from being monitored). What they MAY do for these messages is to fetch the image (or web-bug) and THEN check the "do not display" setting. This will delivery the place-holder image to the user while STILL allowing the "Legit" Spammer to use Web-Bugs and track the user's retrieval of the message.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18461247 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:27:48 EDT Re: "Legit Spammer"? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18461127 anon : There's no way technically to override a user's settings in the web browser or other user agent if the user says "don't display images" or "don't display images from 3rd party servers".

I think what they mean by images and scripts being guaranteed is that the mailbox provider won't filter the text of the message to remove them before they even hit the user's mailbox. That seems reasonable to me on the face of it.

Without commenting on the merits of charging for this service, the idea of an AOL or Yahoo consulting some trusted authority to verify that Acme.com is a legitimate sender (not a spammer, not launching phishing attacks, responding to unsubscribe requests, etc.) and allowing Acme.com's content through to the mailbox without being filtered, stripped, or otherwise transformed doesn't seem objectionable. You may find the idea of someone charging Acme.com for this special treatment objectionable, but that's a separate issue from "overriding the user's preferences" about whether or not to download and view images.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18461127 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:09:11 EDT Re: "Legit Spammer"? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18460347 swhx7 : They call it "opt in", but apparently this refers to the email provider, not their users, choosing to join. The approved senders comply with some rules (they're identified, and no phishing); in exchange they get through the spam filters; and the users see a special symbol that's supposed to promote trust of the sender.

There was mention also that images and scripts would be "guaranteed" to reach recipients too (presumably referring to webmail interface) - so apparently it will overrule users' options to turn off remote images, thereby giving senders verification that the addressee saw the email.

That's what "legit spammer" means. A more truthful term for it is "selling the customers to marketers".]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18460347 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:01:45 EDT Re: "Legit Spammer"? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18460174 Ammler : This is why I shy away from any website that I have to "register" to use. Once they get your address, they abuse it.

And if I still "have" to use it, they get either my Yahoo or Gmail address so all the junk that I don't look at goes there.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18460174 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:30:57 EDT Re: "Legit Spammer"? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18460087 Sr Tech : Today It's all about the money!! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18460087 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:13:46 EDT "Legit Spammer"? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18460037 dadkins : Uhm... WTF is a "Legit Spammer"?

Panda?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,18460037 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:05:49 EDT