Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin

[John Levine via mailop]

It appears that Mark E. Jeftovic via mailop  said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Maybe one of the reasons the right-side of the political spectrum are 
>more aggressive spammers, is that it's a knock-on effect from being 
>marginalized within mainstream channels and leftist BigTech platforms.
>
>Maybe if it was a more level playing field they'd feel less inclined to 
>do so.

Perhaps but that's a much broader problem than anything related to
e-mail or big tech. My impression of the US right wing is that they
are desperately trying to return to a foggy memory of the 1950s, and
the country isn't cooperating. 

My recollection of the 1950s is that they weren't actually all that
great, particularly if you weren't a white guy.

Can we return to talking about e-mail now?

R's,
John
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin

[Mark E. Jeftovic via mailop]

Maybe one of the reasons the right-side of the political spectrum are 
more aggressive spammers, is that it's a knock-on effect from being 
marginalized within mainstream channels and leftist BigTech platforms.


Maybe if it was a more level playing field they'd feel less inclined to 
do so.


- mark

On 2023-08-26 11:05 PM, Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote:


That's been a lot of my finding as well. While I fully empathize with 
efforts to tackle bias, spam from affiliates of the RNC is worse than 
their counterparts. Mainstream bias is worse in the opposite 
direction, spam is worse in this direction. It's quite fair to notice 
the flaws from every angle and that they're different (regardless of 
whether or not anyone feels they're equal, just different).


Given that I'm more likely to be biased in the opposite direction, 
it's noteworthy that I see more spam from affiliates of the 
complainant in this case. They're more numerous, they're more 
clickbaity, and they're more often targeted at people who didn't 
consent via any double opt-in procedure.


So, a solid win for all of us.


On 2023-08-26 14:54, Rob McEwen via mailop wrote:

BigTech is overflowing with extreme-leftist bias - especially with 
their social media fact-checkers - and (to a lesser extent) this bias 
overflows into their spam filtering and search results - HOWEVER - 
the RNC and so many right-wing politicians are among the WORST to try 
such a lawsuit because the RNC, and many of their affiliates, spam 
like crazy and are OFTEN using shady-as-hell practices, such as using 
crappy third party senders who sent to 100% purchased lists, in 
addition to sending from newly-bought domains with zero reputation. 
It's a cesspool. And they make some of the most unethical low-rent 
ESPs wealthy in the process. The owners of some of those of those 
ESPs are spoiled rotten rich brats who think that rules don't apply 
to them. Likewise, every time I'm dealing with their spam, and I 
think about the CEOs of these shady ESPs they're using - I get this 
image in my mind of one or another of the shady drug dealers in the 
movie, Boogie Nights. THAT is who they really are! (I have inside 
info about them - this is a good summary of what these people are like!)


I do know of a few ethical ESPs that cater to conservative 
politicians and who do send ethically/correctly - but they are few 
and far between. Ironically, that the RNC tried this complaint - will 
only make the leftist bias from BigTech - worse!


Likewise, the Republican bill to unravel 47US230 - is a total 
disaster - and all co-sponsoring that are either idiots are didn't 
even hardly read it. 47US230 probably needs improvement because it's 
somewhat abused - but their proposed fix utterly fails to understand 
how much 47US230 protects antispam and antimalware "good guys" from 
being run out of business bu frivolous slapp lawsuits. Everyone will 
suffer greatly if 47US230 is altered or replaced in an unwise way.


Rob McEwen, invaluement


-- Original Message --
From "Anne Mitchell via mailop" 
To "Gellner, Oliver via mailop" 
Date 8/26/2023 2:29:46 PM
Subject [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this here, because it was a 
big win for Gmail plus has language which is applicable to any ISP.


In the order (in which the RNC complaint was dismissed) the court 
basically not only smacked down the RNC, but made clear that the 
Communications Decency Act (i.e. Federal Law) was developed in part to:


"encourage the development of technologies which maximize user 
control over what information is received by individuals, families, 
and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer 
services"


..and the court goes on to say that "Permitting suits to go forward 
against a service provider based on the over-filtering of mass 
marketing emails would discourage providers from offering spam 
filters or significantly decrease the number of emails segregated. 
It would also place courts in the business of micromanaging content 
providers filtering systems in contravention of Congresss directive 
that it be the provider or user that determines what is objectionable".


There's a lot more, it's a great opinion (full text of the court 
order is included in our article):


https://www.isipp.com/blog/rnc-v-google-republican-national-committee-gets-smacked-down-by-court-full-text-of-order-here/

Anne

---
Anne P. Mitchell
Attorney at Law
Email Law & Policy Attorney
CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP)
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email 
marketing law)

Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)

___
mailop mailing lis

Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin

[Jarland Donnell via mailop]

That's been a lot of my finding as well. While I fully empathize with 
efforts to tackle bias, spam from affiliates of the RNC is worse than 
their counterparts. Mainstream bias is worse in the opposite direction, 
spam is worse in this direction. It's quite fair to notice the flaws 
from every angle and that they're different (regardless of whether or 
not anyone feels they're equal, just different).


Given that I'm more likely to be biased in the opposite direction, it's 
noteworthy that I see more spam from affiliates of the complainant in 
this case. They're more numerous, they're more clickbaity, and they're 
more often targeted at people who didn't consent via any double opt-in 
procedure.


So, a solid win for all of us.

On 2023-08-26 14:54, Rob McEwen via mailop wrote:

BigTech is overflowing with extreme-leftist bias - especially with 
their social media fact-checkers - and (to a lesser extent) this bias 
overflows into their spam filtering and search results - HOWEVER - the 
RNC and so many right-wing politicians are among the WORST to try such 
a lawsuit because the RNC, and many of their affiliates, spam like 
crazy and are OFTEN using shady-as-hell practices, such as using crappy 
third party senders who sent to 100% purchased lists, in addition to 
sending from newly-bought domains with zero reputation. It's a 
cesspool. And they make some of the most unethical low-rent ESPs 
wealthy in the process. The owners of some of those of those ESPs are 
spoiled rotten rich brats who think that rules don't apply to them. 
Likewise, every time I'm dealing with their spam, and I think about the 
CEOs of these shady ESPs they're using - I get this image in my mind of 
one or another of the shady drug dealers in the movie, Boogie Nights. 
THAT is who they really are! (I have inside info about them - this is a 
good summary of what these people are like!)


I do know of a few ethical ESPs that cater to conservative politicians 
and who do send ethically/correctly - but they are few and far between. 
Ironically, that the RNC tried this complaint - will only make the 
leftist bias from BigTech - worse!


Likewise, the Republican bill to unravel 47US230 - is a total disaster 
- and all co-sponsoring that are either idiots are didn't even hardly 
read it. 47US230 probably needs improvement because it's somewhat 
abused - but their proposed fix utterly fails to understand how much 
47US230 protects antispam and antimalware "good guys" from being run 
out of business bu frivolous slapp lawsuits. Everyone will suffer 
greatly if 47US230 is altered or replaced in an unwise way.


Rob McEwen, invaluement

-- Original Message --
From "Anne Mitchell via mailop" 
To "Gellner, Oliver via mailop" 
Date 8/26/2023 2:29:46 PM
Subject [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this here, because it was a 
big win for Gmail plus has language which is applicable to any ISP.


In the order (in which the RNC complaint was dismissed) the court 
basically not only smacked down the RNC, but made clear that the 
Communications Decency Act (i.e. Federal Law) was developed in part 
to:


"encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control 
over what information is received by individuals, families, and 
schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services"


..and the court goes on to say that "Permitting suits to go forward 
against a service provider based on the over-filtering of mass 
marketing emails would discourage providers from offering spam filters 
or significantly decrease the number of emails segregated. It would 
also place courts in the business of micromanaging content providers 
filtering systems in contravention of Congresss directive that it be 
the provider or user that determines what is objectionable".


There's a lot more, it's a great opinion (full text of the court order 
is included in our article):


https://www.isipp.com/blog/rnc-v-google-republican-national-committee-gets-smacked-down-by-court-full-text-of-order-here/

Anne

---
Anne P. Mitchell
Attorney at Law
Email Law & Policy Attorney
CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP)
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email 
marketing law)

Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin

[Rob McEwen via mailop]

BigTech is overflowing with extreme-leftist bias - especially with their 
social media fact-checkers - and (to a lesser extent) this bias 
overflows into their spam filtering and search results - HOWEVER - the 
RNC and so many right-wing politicians are among the WORST to try such a 
lawsuit because the RNC, and many of their affiliates, spam like crazy 
and are OFTEN using shady-as-hell practices, such as using crappy third 
party senders who sent to 100% purchased lists, in addition to sending 
from newly-bought domains with zero reputation. It's a cesspool. And 
they make some of the most unethical low-rent ESPs wealthy in the 
process. The owners of some of those of those ESPs are spoiled rotten 
rich brats who think that rules don't apply to them. Likewise, every 
time I'm dealing with their spam, and I think about the CEOs of these 
shady ESPs they're using - I get this image in my mind of one or another 
of the shady drug dealers in the movie, Boogie Nights. THAT is who they 
really are! (I have inside info about them - this is a good summary of 
what these people are like!)


I do know of a few ethical ESPs that cater to conservative politicians 
and who do send ethically/correctly - but they are few and far between. 
Ironically, that the RNC tried this complaint - will only make the 
leftist bias from BigTech - worse!


Likewise, the Republican bill to unravel 47US230 - is a total disaster - 
and all co-sponsoring that are either idiots are didn't even hardly read 
it. 47US230 probably needs improvement because it's somewhat abused - 
but their proposed fix utterly fails to understand how much 47US230 
protects antispam and antimalware "good guys" from being run out of 
business bu frivolous slapp lawsuits. Everyone will suffer greatly if 
47US230 is altered or replaced in an unwise way.


Rob McEwen, invaluement


-- Original Message --
From "Anne Mitchell via mailop" 
To "Gellner, Oliver via mailop" 
Date 8/26/2023 2:29:46 PM
Subject [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin


I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this here, because it was a big win for 
Gmail plus has language which is applicable to any ISP.

In the order (in which the RNC complaint was dismissed) the court basically not 
only smacked down the RNC, but made clear that the Communications Decency Act 
(i.e. Federal Law) was developed in part to:

"encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what 
information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and 
other interactive computer services"

..and the court goes on to say that "Permitting suits to go forward against a 
service provider based on the over-filtering of mass marketing emails would discourage 
providers from offering spam filters or significantly decrease the number of emails 
segregated. It would also place courts in the business of micromanaging content providers 
filtering systems in contravention of Congresss directive that it be the provider or user 
that determines what is objectionable".

There's a lot more, it's a great opinion (full text of the court order is 
included in our article):

https://www.isipp.com/blog/rnc-v-google-republican-national-committee-gets-smacked-down-by-court-full-text-of-order-here/

Anne

---
Anne P. Mitchell
Attorney at Law
Email Law & Policy Attorney
CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP)
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law)
Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

[mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin

[Anne Mitchell via mailop]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this here, because it was a big win for 
Gmail plus has language which is applicable to any ISP. 

In the order (in which the RNC complaint was dismissed) the court basically not 
only smacked down the RNC, but made clear that the Communications Decency Act 
(i.e. Federal Law) was developed in part to:

"encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over 
what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the 
Internet and other interactive computer services"

..and the court goes on to say that "Permitting suits to go forward against a 
service provider based on the over-filtering of mass marketing emails would 
discourage providers from offering spam filters or significantly decrease the 
number of emails segregated. It would also place courts in the business of 
micromanaging content providers filtering systems in contravention of Congresss 
directive that it be the provider or user that determines what is 
objectionable".

There's a lot more, it's a great opinion (full text of the court order is 
included in our article):

https://www.isipp.com/blog/rnc-v-google-republican-national-committee-gets-smacked-down-by-court-full-text-of-order-here/

Anne

--- 
Anne P. Mitchell
Attorney at Law
Email Law & Policy Attorney
CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP)
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law)
Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Legit-looking mail to the wrong address with no unsubscribe

[Jay Hennigan via mailop]

On 8/26/23 06:58, Slavko via mailop wrote:


Or people simple do not want to share own email, as it is
not related for delivery, but required by the form. Thus
they fill semi random email like string.


That's what mailinator is for, or the temporary addresses offered by 
several browser plugins, or if you know they're going to use it to spam 
you, abuse@ their domain. nob...@example.com works as well, and 
1-900-976-1212 for a "required" phone number.


--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Legit-looking mail to the wrong address with no unsubscribe

[Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop]

Dnia 26.08.2023 o godz. 13:58:21 Slavko via mailop pisze:
> 
> Or people simple do not want to share own email, as it is
> not related for delivery, but required by the form. Thus
> they fill semi random email like string.

In many cases either the correct email address OR a phone number is needed
for delivery.
If you buy anything and choose your order to be delivered to a parcel
machine (you may not know them in the US, but in my country they are
extremely popular as they are super convenient, and it's the preferred
method of delivery for many people), you NEED a way to receive the code that
allows you to pick up the package at the machine. The code comes via email
and via a text message to the specified phone number, so you need at least
one of them.
Even if the delivery comes via a regular courier, providing your email when
placing order is helpful, because 1) usually you get a message with a link
that allows you to track your package on the delivery company's website so
you know when it's about to be delivered; 2) many delivery companies send
you (usually a day before planned delivery) another mail with a link that
allows you to eg. redirect the package to another address if you cannot
pick it up, or change the delivery date.

And because of GDPR (already mentioned in the thread), I actually NEVER see
here the cases when email given for transactional purposes is used to spam
you, unless you actually checked the box saying that you agree to marketing
email when placing your order... Yes, it did happen several years ago, but
now nobody will risk fines for GDPR non-compliance.

They do it a different way. They often offer a discount if you subscribe to
marketing email. Especially cell phone providers and ISPs. It is now almost
a "standard" that with typical contract you pay X per month if you don't
agree to marketing email, and X-5 or X-10 per month if you do.
-- 
Regards,
   Jaroslaw Rafa
   r...@rafa.eu.org
--
"In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there
was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Legit-looking mail to the wrong address with no unsubscribe

[Slavko via mailop]

Dňa 26. augusta 2023 11:29:34 UTC používateľ Alessandro Vesely via mailop 
 napísal:
>On Fri 25/Aug/2023 23:12:56 +0200 postfix wrote:
>> users either underuse, or overconsume.  In both cases they are paying more 
>> than what a market without subscription would do.
>
>Aha, so that's why they tend to give the wrong address...

Or people simple do not want to share own email, as it is
not related for delivery, but required by the form. Thus
they fill semi random email like string.

This will prevent to receive (and bother with filter/delete)
a) tons of marketing spams and b) tons of real spams after
compromise, etc...

And, from time to time, that random email can be real.

regards


-- 
Slavko
https://www.slavino.sk/
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Legit-looking mail to the wrong address with no unsubscribe

[Alessandro Vesely via mailop]

On Fri 25/Aug/2023 23:12:56 +0200 postfix wrote:
users either underuse, or overconsume.  In both cases they are paying more than 
what a market without subscription would do.



Aha, so that's why they tend to give the wrong address...

For comparison, the delivery address is wrong in rare cases, which are solved 
quickly.



Best
Ale
--





___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Legit-looking mail to the wrong address with no unsubscribe

[Gellner, Oliver via mailop]

> On 25.08.2023 at 13:29 Brotman, Alex via mailop wrote:
>
>  Are you suggesting that an unsub results in a suppression?  That hardly 
> seems ideal.  That seems to suggest I sign up for a brand's email list.  
> Order some stuff, get receipt.  Later unsub.  Later buy again, but get no 
> receipt?  (Presuming it comes from the same ESP)

Yes, this is absolutely not ideal, and basically the opposite behavior of what 
is reported in this thread: If you complain once you will not receive any 
messages ever again, not even when you actually requested them yourself.

I’m under the impression Sendgrid operates like this and also another member on 
this list suggested this approach a few days ago: If you report their emails as 
spam, they add your address to a suppression list. If you request password 
reset emails or other transactional messages later on which are sent via 
Sendgrid as well, they are silently discarded.

I’m not sure if anyone is sending opt-in confirmations for transactional 
emails, but if you do then you have to send them again for every new 
transaction and cannot assume that a recipient is not interested in any future 
messages just because he wasn’t interested in one before.

—
BR Oliver




dmTECH GmbH
Am dm-Platz 1, 76227 Karlsruhe * Postfach 10 02 34, 76232 Karlsruhe
Telefon 0721 5592-2500 Telefax 0721 5592-2777
dmt...@dm.de * www.dmTECH.de
GmbH: Sitz Karlsruhe, Registergericht Mannheim, HRB 104927
Geschäftsführer: Christoph Werner, Martin Dallmeier, Roman Melcher

Datenschutzrechtliche Informationen
Wenn Sie mit uns in Kontakt treten, beispielsweise wenn Sie an unser 
ServiceCenter Fragen haben, bei uns einkaufen oder unser dialogicum in 
Karlsruhe besuchen, mit uns in einer geschäftlichen Verbindung stehen oder sich 
bei uns bewerben, verarbeiten wir personenbezogene Daten. Informationen unter 
anderem zu den konkreten Datenverarbeitungen, Löschfristen, Ihren Rechten sowie 
die Kontaktdaten unserer Datenschutzbeauftragten finden Sie 
hier.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop

Re: [mailop] Legit-looking mail to the wrong address with no unsubscribe

[Alessandro Vesely via mailop]

On Fri 25/Aug/2023 17:36:06 +0200 Chris Adams via mailop wrote:

Once upon a time, Jaroslaw Rafa  said:

Dnia 25.08.2023 o godz. 09:48:35 Chris Adams via mailop pisze:


So even for transactional messages, there's usually an account making 
the purchase, or something is being delivered to an address, or the 
like.  So a "this is not me" link should be able to note that (a) don't 
send more mail about the current transaction to this address and (b) 
don't send any mail for future transactions with the same delivery to 
the same address without further input.  Future orders that would have 
transactional emails blocked should pop up and say "hey, this address is 
flagged as NOT YOU, are you sure?".


This does not solve the problem of one-time purchases WITHOUT an account 
(actually may be multiple "one-time" purchases, but without registering an 
account at the shop and logging in).


"or something is being delivered to an address"

One of the things that prompted me to send the initial message here is 
DoorDash delivering food to the same person.  In that case, it appears 
they made an account, but even if they didn't, it's probably going to 
the same place.  So "delivery address+email" is a unique identifier.



If you have an unsub button —which some suggest be /always/ set in automated 
mails— you should store unsubbed addresses whether they have an account or not. 
 So Chris' solution is good for all cases.  Re-entering an unsubbed address 
should trigger extra checks, COI or whatever.



Best
Ale
--




___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop