Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Clear & simple order confirmation? | 221 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Clear & simple order confirmation?

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 18 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT

Amazon order confirmations used to be shortish plain text emails
but containing up to six embedded html links. From a brief
examination it seems those depend on the user having a browser
cookie set for Amazon.

However I have another order confirmation from February this year
which is styled text with one image, and six embedded links
containing customer identification material, plus five links not
identifying me, plus another two anonymous links for each item.

My lack of Amazon recommendations lately may be due to my
purging their browser cookie. This would make their old style links
no longer work, and force them to use the February style with
userID embedded in the link, thus arousing Google's suspicion.

Google are probably wringing their hands, How can we let the
OP get all the spam -he- wants, and protect our other
three billion users?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

personalizing spam filtering. - Authored by: reiisi on Friday, October 19 2012 @ 08:51 PM EDT

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )