Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin

2023-08-29 Thread Laura Atkins via mailop


> On 29 Aug 2023, at 03:31, John Levine via mailop  wrote:
> 
> It appears that Anne Mitchell via mailop  said:
>> 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. 
> 
> Mike Masnick at the always interesting Techdirt blog has a longer take.  You 
> can tell from the URL what he thinks of it.
> 
> https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/28/as-predicted-judge-laughs-gops-laughable-google-spam-bias-lawsuit-right-out-of-court/

Reading that article was a trip down memory lane for all the spammers that sued 
ISPs to try and get them to deliver the mail. I’d forgotten e360 sued Comcast, 
though.

laura 


-- 
The Delivery Expert

Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
la...@wordtothewise.com

Delivery hints and commentary: http://wordtothewise.com/blog






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


Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin

2023-08-28 Thread John Levine via mailop
It appears that Anne Mitchell via mailop  said:
>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. 

Mike Masnick at the always interesting Techdirt blog has a longer take.  You 
can tell from the URL what he thinks of it.

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/28/as-predicted-judge-laughs-gops-laughable-google-spam-bias-lawsuit-right-out-of-court/

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


Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin

2023-08-26 Thread 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

2023-08-26 Thread 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 

Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin

2023-08-26 Thread 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

2023-08-26 Thread 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