[SpamCop-List] Re: Bonded Spammer vs SpamCop, what will happen?

[Frog Prince]

<fredfighter at spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:40A4F2A3.82B7E151 at spamcop.net...
| It has been, er, suggested that I post this here instead.
|
| It is dismaying to read here: https://www.bondedsender.com/standards.jsp
|
| includes as 'Acceptable forms of consent '
| opt-out and  Unconfirmed opt-in, which invariably allows
| subscription forgery.
|
| Both Bonded Sender, and SpamCop are owned by Ironport. This
| seems to be a serious conflict.    What is going to happen when
| SpamCop Users LART Bonded Spammer compliant email?
|
| Will SpamCop depart from the internet standard definition of
| spam?
'
Based on quick reading of the TOS/AUP they don't need a definition of spam
or to follow one if they had one.  All I see is a codification of what the
DMA has requested all along.  We can do what we what when we want and we
don't care much less have to adhere to any effective standard.

IMHO the BondedSender standards as posted have effectively lost IornPort's
case in the recent legal action.  Much as I dislike spam if I were on the
jury I'd have to find for Ricky Tricky Tavy on this information alone.