You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com> on 2004/03/21 17:26:37 UTC
(I) Can-Spam compliant
Just got this today:
<font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">VentureDirect
Online is Can-Spam Compliant.<br>
This commerical message has been brought to you by YourDegreeHere.com
is a service
of VentureDirect Worldwide, Inc., 60 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
10010.<br>
Opt-Out: Venture Direct does not support
unsolicited e-mail. If you no longer wish to receive e-mails from
Venture Direct please <a
href="http://www.thehdhd.com/25292I9345577.HTM">visit here</a>.</font>
<br><img border=0 height=1 width=1
src="http://www.thehdhd.com/13219O9345577.GIF"><br>
and wondering if this is another "This message is compliant with house
bill <some#>" BS or if it is serious.
The messages does not appear to have forged<1> headers, but it comes to
an email address (162@southgaylord.com) that is setup exclusively to
receive Politech and Spam.
<1> at least insofar as The Return-Path, name of the server that
delivered to my server, message id, and from all have the same domains
(thehdhd.com).
Headers follow, full spam text available if anyone wants it.
Return-Path: <Ke...@thehdhd.com>
Received: from M1-6.thehdhd.com (m1-6.thehdhd.com [66.63.174.239])
by mail.covisp.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4F4118B42D
for <16...@southgaylord.com>; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 01:54:01 -0700 (MST)
Received: by M1-6.thehdhd.com (PowerMTA(TM) v1.6a30); Sun, 21 Mar 2004
02:44:50 -0500 (envelope-from <Ke...@thehdhd.com>)
Message-Id: <13...@thehdhd.com>
From: Kennedy-Western University <13...@thehdhd.com>
To: <16...@southgaylord.com>
Subject: Kennedy-Western University's convenient online degrees
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 02:44:50 -0500
X-E: 273Atpvuihbzmpse/dpn
X-I: 13219.9345577
X-Rec: southgaylord.com!162
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=-13219.9345577
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on
akane.covisp.net
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.5 required=5.0
tests=BAYES_70,CLICK_BELOW,EXCUSE_14,
FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63
--
I listen to the wind, to the wind of my soul
Re: (I) Can-Spam compliant
Posted by Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>.
At 11:26 AM 3/21/2004, LuKreme wrote:
>and wondering if this is another "This message is compliant with house
>bill <some#>" BS or if it is serious.
Can-spam is a real federal US law.. it more-or-less says you can spam if you
include a physical address and a removal mechanism
don't use a misleading subject
don't forge delivery headers
http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html
However, odds are very high that any email claiming can-spam compliance
will only meet the requirements in appearance, but the remove mechanism
will not work and the contact address is likely a road to nowhere.
Re: (I) Can-Spam compliant
Posted by Greg Cirino - Cirelle Enterprises <gc...@cirelle.com>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "LuKreme" <kr...@kreme.com>
| and wondering if this is another "This message is compliant with house
| bill <some#>" BS or if it is serious.
can spam (nutshell)
1. sender must be authorized to use the server to send mail
2. the subject of the message must not be misleading with respect to the content
3. sender must not attempt to forge (for lack of a better term) the origination of the message for the purpose of sending the email
<excerpt from the Bill - Link to the actual bill below>
(a) OFFENSE-
(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1037. Fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail
`(a) IN GENERAL- Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly--
`(1) accesses a protected computer without authorization, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from or through such computer,
`(2) uses a protected computer to relay or retransmit multiple commercial electronic mail messages, with the intent to deceive or mislead recipients, or any Internet access service, as to the origin of such messages,
`(3) materially falsifies header information in multiple commercial electronic mail messages and intentionally initiates the transmission of such messages,
`(4) registers, using information that materially falsifies the identity of the actual registrant, for five or more electronic mail accounts or online user accounts or two or more domain names, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from any combination of such accounts or domain names, or
`(5) falsely represents oneself to be the registrant or the legitimate successor in interest to the registrant of 5 or more Internet Protocol addresses, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from such addresses,
or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
<end of excerpt>
Full Can Spam here: http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html
What you provided does not seem to be an abuse of Can Spam, but that is not to say it isn't Spam to someone :)
Regards
Greg
Re: (I) Can-Spam compliant
Posted by Vivek Khera <kh...@kcilink.com>.
On Mar 21, 2004, at 11:27 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> I realise after reading my message as posted that my phrasing was bad.
> I knew the CAN-SPAM was a real law (thus my use of the "(I) Can Spam"
> monicker, since it basically gives scumbags a license to spam). What
> I meant to ask was if the claim to be compliant was itself a indicator
> or spam (like the old fictions house bill claims of 4 years ago), and
> if so, how strong.
>
In one of the hats I wear, I operate commercial mailing lists. The
messages we send are compliant with this act, but we don't go out of
our way to advertise that fact within the message. Personally, I think
by putting that disclaimer, you're effectively saying "yes, we know
this is spam and you really don't want it, but we complied with the
letter of this little law here, and thus you can't sue us nor have your
AG come after us".
Legitimate mail (bulk or otherwise) just doesn't need such disclaimers
since the people receiving them will know why they got them.
Re: (I) Can-Spam compliant
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On Mar 22, 2004, at 5:27 PM, John Andersen wrote:
> On Sunday 21 March 2004 19:27, LuKreme wrote:
>> What I
>> meant to ask was if the claim to be compliant was itself a indicator
>> or
>> spam (like the old fictions house bill claims of 4 years ago), and if
>> so, how strong.
>
> Heh, my guess is you answered your own question.
> Have you EVER gotten a legitimate email with canspam mentioned
> that was not in fact spam?
Well, this was he first message I noticed with the disclaimer.
> Legitimate opt in lists seldom mention this sort of thing.
Good point.
(and thanks also to Vivek Khrea who sid much the same thing)
--
#242755 <jshock221> a freudian slip is when you say one thing but
you're really thinking about a mother.
<Spadgeroonie> no, a freudian slip is sexy underwear your mother wears
Re: (I) Can-Spam compliant
Posted by John Andersen <js...@pen.homeip.net>.
On Sunday 21 March 2004 19:27, LuKreme wrote:
> What I
> meant to ask was if the claim to be compliant was itself a indicator or
> spam (like the old fictions house bill claims of 4 years ago), and if
> so, how strong.
Heh, my guess is you answered your own question.
Have you EVER gotten a legitimate email with canspam mentioned
that was not in fact spam?
I would weight it no more than 1.0 so that subscriptions to your
bank, airline, yada yada, mailing lists would not arbitrarily
get flagged spam by virtue of this alone.
Legitimate opt in lists seldom mention this sort of thing.
--
_____________________________________
John Andersen
Re: (I) Can-Spam compliant
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On Mar 21, 2004, at 8:28 PM, Matt Yackley wrote:
> LuKreme said:
>> Just got this today:
>>
>> <font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">VentureDirect
>> Online is Can-Spam Compliant.<br>
>> This commerical message has been brought to you by YourDegreeHere.com
>> is a service
>> of VentureDirect Worldwide, Inc., 60 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
>> 10010.<br>
>>
>
> LuKreme,
> As others have said, this is a US law, however that does not mean its
> not
> a sign of spam in my book..
I realise after reading my message as posted that my phrasing was bad.
I knew the CAN-SPAM was a real law (thus my use of the "(I) Can Spam"
monicker, since it basically gives scumbags a license to spam). What I
meant to ask was if the claim to be compliant was itself a indicator or
spam (like the old fictions house bill claims of 4 years ago), and if
so, how strong.
> body YM_B_CANSPAM_1 /complian(?:ce|t).{1,25}can.spam/i
> describe YM_B_CANSPAM_1 Message claims to be in compliance with
> CAN-SPAM,
> possible sign of spam
> score YM_B_CANSPAM_1 0.5
>
> body YM_B_CANSPAM_2 /can.spam.{1,10}complian(?:ce|t)/i
> describe YM_B_CANSPAM_2 Message claims to be in compliance with
> CAN-SPAM,
> possible sign of spam
> score YM_B_CANSPAM_2 0.5
I'll give those a whirl.
--
The Piper's calling you to join him
Re: (I) Can-Spam compliant
Posted by Matt Yackley <sa...@yackley.org>.
LuKreme said:
> Just got this today:
>
> <font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">VentureDirect
> Online is Can-Spam Compliant.<br>
> This commerical message has been brought to you by YourDegreeHere.com
> is a service
> of VentureDirect Worldwide, Inc., 60 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
> 10010.<br>
>
LuKreme,
As others have said, this is a US law, however that does not mean its not
a sign of spam in my book..
There are a few valid emails that have it, but most of the time I see it
on garbage. Here is a rule I use, watch for line wraps....
body YM_B_CANSPAM_1 /complian(?:ce|t).{1,25}can.spam/i
describe YM_B_CANSPAM_1 Message claims to be in compliance with CAN-SPAM,
possible sign of spam
score YM_B_CANSPAM_1 0.5
body YM_B_CANSPAM_2 /can.spam.{1,10}complian(?:ce|t)/i
describe YM_B_CANSPAM_2 Message claims to be in compliance with CAN-SPAM,
possible sign of spam
score YM_B_CANSPAM_2 0.5
-matt
Re: Bigevil Nomination? (Was Re: (I) Can-Spam compliant)
Posted by David B Funk <db...@engineering.uiowa.edu>.
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, LuKreme wrote:
> Well, I went ahead and clicked the remove link and immediately (within
> 10 minutes) received several more spams from this outfit. I have
> LARTed to their NSP and local-blacklisted the class C.
I've got some unique e-mail addresses that I never use except
for plugging into suspicious unsubscribe/remove links.
Makes for a great spam-fodder source. If you use tagged addresses
you can even play the 'who bought/sold this address' game. ;)
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
Bigevil Nomination? (Was Re: (I) Can-Spam compliant)
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On Mar 21, 2004, at 11:03 AM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> The statement "This commercial message is ... <postal address>" plus
> the
> inclusion of an "Internet-based" opt-out mechanism, are what make the
> message compliant (assuming that opting out actually works). If you
> have
> given "affirmative consent" to the sender then the "commercial message"
> part can be left out, but the postal address and opt-out mechanism
> still
> have to be there.
Well, I went ahead and clicked the remove link and immediately (within
10 minutes) received several more spams from this outfit. I have
LARTed to their NSP and local-blacklisted the class C.
can I nominate http://www.thehdhd.com for bigevil?
>
--
Just give us a kiss to celebrate here, today.
Re: (I) Can-Spam compliant
Posted by Bart Schaefer <sc...@zanshin.com>.
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, LuKreme wrote:
> wondering if this is another "This message is compliant with house
> bill <some#>" BS or if it is serious.
There really is a CAN-SPAM (note capitalization, it's an acronym) Act, and
it really does require that certain statements be made in the body of the
email.
It *doesn't* require that the Act itself be mentioned by name. To do so
is sort of like putting a bumper sticker on your car giving the number of
the state law that requires you to have a drivers license; meaningless
unless you actually have the license.
The statement "This commercial message is ... <postal address>" plus the
inclusion of an "Internet-based" opt-out mechanism, are what make the
message compliant (assuming that opting out actually works). If you have
given "affirmative consent" to the sender then the "commercial message"
part can be left out, but the postal address and opt-out mechanism still
have to be there.