Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
I would caution against assuming that legal analysis is required to match technical analysis. At the least, any legal proceedings would involve a lot of argument over exactly what the words in the statute mean, what the intent of the legislature was, and whether reasonable attempts were made to meet them. And these things will often be decided by decidedly non-technical judges. And that's even assuming that the legal system tries to deal with things in an unbiased manner, which is not a safe assumption now, if it ever was. Given that there is also a large number of other legislation targeting the likely involved companies, not to mention other legal proceedings, there is certainly the potential for spill over effects as well. I would not want to rely on an argument in court that "label" only means label in the Gmail sense, and doesn't apply to a header, subject prefix, category, keyword or folder or color or whatever. Or that junk didn't mean spam. Brandon On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 9:19 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > I'm not an American, so it's basically "not my fairy-tale" (as we say in > our > country), but I can't stop wondering at the use of the word "label" in the > proposed regulation. > > I already asked (in a bit sarcastic tone) in one of the previous emails, > what > is a "label" in context of email in general. Because there's simply no such > thing: if you look at email protocols, or operation of server software, > there's no such thing as "label". Spam filters may add a *header* > indicating > that a message is spam, but is a header a "label" or not? And if the spam > filter does not add a header, but just directly moves the message (using > sieve for example) to spam *folder* on the server? Is a *physical folder in > the filesystem* a "label" or not? > > "Labels" per se exist only in some implementations of MUAs, most notably in > Gmail web interface. So either the regulation is targeted particularly at > Google, or it's authors never saw any other email system than Gmail and > imagine that a "label" is some universal thing (which wonders me, because > don't they have their internal email systems at Congress or governmental > institutions?) > > Another question is, how are the operators supposed to distinguish > political > messages from non-political ones? The only reasonable method that comes to > mind is submitting by political senders in advance to the operators a list > of sender addresses that shouldn't be filtered. Operators can then > whitelist > them. > > But can't compiling a list of such sender be considered some form of > "applying a label"? In that cse the regulation becomes self-contradictory: > in order to comply with the regulation and "not apply a label" to political > messages, you have first to "apply a label" to senders of those messages, a > label that says "don't apply any label to messages from this sender". > > Just some doubts that - at least for me - show that this entire proposal > doesn't make any sense. > -- > 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 > ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
On 8/1/22 9:59 AM, WIlliam Fisher via mailop wrote: This is purely a "punish big tech for us not following rules" bill. Any time someone says / implies "do what I say, not what I do" I become highly suspicious of the veracity of their statement. If the laws aren't good enough for you, then they aren't good enough for anyone. -- Grant. . . . unix || die smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
They don't care. This is purely a "punish big tech for us not following rules" bill. On 8/1/22 8:46 AM, Bill Cole via mailop wrote: On 2022-08-01 at 05:12:01 UTC-0400 (Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:12:01 +0200) Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop is rumored to have said: Dnia 1.08.2022 o godz. 08:26:56 Dan Malm via mailop pisze: But the only way you can get gmail to "use a filtering algorithm to apply a label" would be for yourself to "take action to apply such a label" by creating a filter yourself... Gmail doesn't apply labels to spam, it places the spam in your spam folder. We commonly call it "spam folder", but in terms used by Gmail, "Spam" is a "label", not a "folder". There are no "folders" in Gmail web interface. What we'd call "folders" is called "labels" by Gmail. And is expressed in IMAP as both a folder of messages and as the $Junk keyword applied to those messages. The people who wrote that bill don't understand any technical details about email and clearly didn't believe that they needed to. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
There is a definite bias in American political e-mail, but it has nothing to do with actual politics. Blue e-mail tends to follow best sending practices, mostly uses good carriers, etc. (I said mostly) Red e-mail tends to not follow best practices, use the cheapest and less reputable carriers, and have tons of "cross-platform" unsolicited messages. We've all seen it. I am surprised they haven't also named the large AVAS companies that do the filtering for the smaller companies as well. On 8/1/22 11:39 AM, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote: On Jul 31, 2022, at 1:29 PM, Laura Atkins via mailop wrote: The research paper seems reasonably well done and I encourage people to actually read it and their conclusions rather than paying attention to the popular press takes on it. Totally agreed and, in fact, my understanding is that the authors are not pleased by the ..(how can I be circumspect here?...um...) "bill's authors and their ilk" miscasting and misrepresenting it in order to fuel this effort. -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam 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 ___ 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] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
On 2022-07-30 21:07, Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote: > > I think in this case we all know what they're doing and you've hit it dead > on. They're targeting Gmail and they're not really interested in anyone else. Which is one reason the bill may not go any further, because now that Google has caved and asked the FEC for an opinion letter on Google's "pilot program" to let political campaign email bypass spam filtering, that stick may have already done its job (there was no carrot). Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam 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 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
> On Jul 31, 2022, at 1:29 PM, Laura Atkins via mailop > wrote: > > The research paper seems reasonably well done and I encourage people to > actually read it and their conclusions rather than paying attention to the > popular press takes on it. Totally agreed and, in fact, my understanding is that the authors are not pleased by the ..(how can I be circumspect here?...um...) "bill's authors and their ilk" miscasting and misrepresenting it in order to fuel this effort. -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam 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 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
On 2022-08-01 at 05:12:01 UTC-0400 (Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:12:01 +0200) Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop is rumored to have said: Dnia 1.08.2022 o godz. 08:26:56 Dan Malm via mailop pisze: But the only way you can get gmail to "use a filtering algorithm to apply a label" would be for yourself to "take action to apply such a label" by creating a filter yourself... Gmail doesn't apply labels to spam, it places the spam in your spam folder. We commonly call it "spam folder", but in terms used by Gmail, "Spam" is a "label", not a "folder". There are no "folders" in Gmail web interface. What we'd call "folders" is called "labels" by Gmail. And is expressed in IMAP as both a folder of messages and as the $Junk keyword applied to those messages. The people who wrote that bill don't understand any technical details about email and clearly didn't believe that they needed to. -- Bill Cole b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) Not Currently Available For Hire ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
Dnia 1.08.2022 o godz. 08:26:56 Dan Malm via mailop pisze: > > But the only way you can get gmail to "use a filtering algorithm to apply a > label" would be for yourself to "take action to apply such a label" by > creating a filter yourself... Gmail doesn't apply labels to spam, it places > the spam in your spam folder. We commonly call it "spam folder", but in terms used by Gmail, "Spam" is a "label", not a "folder". There are no "folders" in Gmail web interface. What we'd call "folders" is called "labels" by Gmail. -- 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] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
On 2022-07-30 21:07, Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote: I think in this case we all know what they're doing and you've hit it dead on. They're targeting Gmail and they're not really interested in anyone else. But the only way you can get gmail to "use a filtering algorithm to apply a label" would be for yourself to "take action to apply such a label" by creating a filter yourself... Gmail doesn't apply labels to spam, it places the spam in your spam folder. -- BR/Mvh. Dan Malm, Systems Engineer, One.com OpenPGP_0x328258BA5141B0F4.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
The research paper seems reasonably well done and I encourage people to actually read it and their conclusions rather than paying attention to the popular press takes on it. Laura Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 30, 2022, at 7:54 PM, Larry M. Smith via mailop > wrote: > > On 7/29/2022, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote: >> I want to be sure that everyone here is aware of a piece of pending >> legislation in the U.S. that is in committee in both the House and the >> Senate right now. It's called the Political BIAS Emails Act of 2022 (BIAS is >> short for “Bias In Algorithm Sorting”), and it requires that, and I quote: >> “It shall be unlawful for an operator of an email service to use a filtering >> algorithm to apply a label to an email sent to an email account from a >> political campaign unless the owner or user of the account took action to >> apply such a label.” >> It is getting relatively very little press, and of course the chances of it >> passing are greater if nobody knows to oppose it. >> We've written an article about it, which includes what to do, whom to >> contact and how, etc., and which includes all relevant links, here: >> https://www.isipp.com/blog/do-you-want-political-email-to-bypass-spam-filters-and-go-directly-to-your-inbox-congress-does-heres-what-to-do/ >> Feel free to share - in fact please do, if this thing passes it's the >> camel's nose under the tent. > > IIRC, this all started because a research paper somewhere noted that a > specific political party seemed to have more deliverability issues than the > other prominent party did. Fast forward a bit and there exists a > vast conspiracy in anti-spam against that specific political party . > > I can't speak to all anti-spam systems, but the vast majority of them work on > behavioral models and not some list of word that someone has entered into a > list somewhere. > > I have noted that a large number that political party's members seem to be > quick to label those that disagree with some its policies and positions as > either the enemy or disloyal. Perhaps it is an attitude "I will do what I > want, and if you disagree with me, then you are some sort of commie scum," > that has resulted in them not following advise offered to them, so that they > don't look like a bunch of spammers taking a bump all over everyone's inboxes. > > .. I really don't know, but I tend to discount the belief that this is a > conspiracy against them. > > > SgtChains > ___ > 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] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
On Fri, 29 Jul 2022, Justin Scott via mailop wrote: Interestingly any email "operator" with fewer than 500 employees or less than $5 billion in annual revenue is exempt, so clearly targeted at the major providers and not self-hosted operators or small hosting companies, thankfully. Yes, but anyone providing email services for large companies may have to keep an eye open. For example those parameters mean that Boeing, or anyone filtering email for Boeing has to engage with the bill, but Barracuda doesn't have to except when acting for particularly large companies. -- Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK and...@aitchison.me.uk ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
On Sat, 30 Jul 2022 18:44:10 +, "Larry M. Smith via mailop" wrote: >.. I really don't know, but I tend to discount the belief that this is a >conspiracy against them. Looking over the past seven years' data, I find that exactly one Democrat campaign purchased an address that delivers here. Traffic to that address stopped after the 2016 election. There were two other accounts that opted in to various Democrat candidates' campaigns. They have seen moderate traffic. In the same interval, six addresses that deliver here were used to deliver GOP traffic, and subsequently from a number of organizations that appear to be ideologically allied with other senders to these addressses. Only one of these addresses belongs to a living being that could voluntarily subscribe to those messages. That person did indeed give that email address to the the RNC, which was pushing the Trump campaign in 2015. Interestingly, when the RNC gave a copy of that DB to the former president's operations, they completely left out all of the juice: Name, address, ZIP code, telephone number, contribution history... That address has collected well over seven thousand messages since it was created. With the sender(s) there is apparently no interest in suppressing non-responding addresses after, say six months. In my recent experience in deliverability, one would be utterly astonished if the above characteristics did not result in delivery statistics at Google that differed from the ones complained of by the aggrieved Party. Also, after the outburst from a Legislator that he can EXPECT that postal mail will be DELIVERED!... I would love to ask how much he has paid Google, compared to how much he has paid USPS, such that he could expect a commensurate performance. Unless, of course, this isn't a Free Market Capitalist® situation. mdr -- "There are no laws here, only agreements." -- Masahiko ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
I think in this case we all know what they're doing and you've hit it dead on. They're targeting Gmail and they're not really interested in anyone else. On 2022-07-30 11:16, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: I'm not an American, so it's basically "not my fairy-tale" (as we say in our country), but I can't stop wondering at the use of the word "label" in the proposed regulation. I already asked (in a bit sarcastic tone) in one of the previous emails, what is a "label" in context of email in general. Because there's simply no such thing: if you look at email protocols, or operation of server software, there's no such thing as "label". Spam filters may add a *header* indicating that a message is spam, but is a header a "label" or not? And if the spam filter does not add a header, but just directly moves the message (using sieve for example) to spam *folder* on the server? Is a *physical folder in the filesystem* a "label" or not? "Labels" per se exist only in some implementations of MUAs, most notably in Gmail web interface. So either the regulation is targeted particularly at Google, or it's authors never saw any other email system than Gmail and imagine that a "label" is some universal thing (which wonders me, because don't they have their internal email systems at Congress or governmental institutions?) Another question is, how are the operators supposed to distinguish political messages from non-political ones? The only reasonable method that comes to mind is submitting by political senders in advance to the operators a list of sender addresses that shouldn't be filtered. Operators can then whitelist them. But can't compiling a list of such sender be considered some form of "applying a label"? In that cse the regulation becomes self-contradictory: in order to comply with the regulation and "not apply a label" to political messages, you have first to "apply a label" to senders of those messages, a label that says "don't apply any label to messages from this sender". Just some doubts that - at least for me - show that this entire proposal doesn't make any sense. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
On 7/29/2022, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote: I want to be sure that everyone here is aware of a piece of pending legislation in the U.S. that is in committee in both the House and the Senate right now. It's called the Political BIAS Emails Act of 2022 (BIAS is short for “Bias In Algorithm Sorting”), and it requires that, and I quote: “It shall be unlawful for an operator of an email service to use a filtering algorithm to apply a label to an email sent to an email account from a political campaign unless the owner or user of the account took action to apply such a label.” It is getting relatively very little press, and of course the chances of it passing are greater if nobody knows to oppose it. We've written an article about it, which includes what to do, whom to contact and how, etc., and which includes all relevant links, here: https://www.isipp.com/blog/do-you-want-political-email-to-bypass-spam-filters-and-go-directly-to-your-inbox-congress-does-heres-what-to-do/ Feel free to share - in fact please do, if this thing passes it's the camel's nose under the tent. IIRC, this all started because a research paper somewhere noted that a specific political party seemed to have more deliverability issues than the other prominent party did. Fast forward a bit and there exists a vast conspiracy in anti-spam against that specific political party . I can't speak to all anti-spam systems, but the vast majority of them work on behavioral models and not some list of word that someone has entered into a list somewhere. I have noted that a large number that political party's members seem to be quick to label those that disagree with some its policies and positions as either the enemy or disloyal. Perhaps it is an attitude "I will do what I want, and if you disagree with me, then you are some sort of commie scum," that has resulted in them not following advise offered to them, so that they don't look like a bunch of spammers taking a bump all over everyone's inboxes. .. I really don't know, but I tend to discount the belief that this is a conspiracy against them. SgtChains ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
I'm not an American, so it's basically "not my fairy-tale" (as we say in our country), but I can't stop wondering at the use of the word "label" in the proposed regulation. I already asked (in a bit sarcastic tone) in one of the previous emails, what is a "label" in context of email in general. Because there's simply no such thing: if you look at email protocols, or operation of server software, there's no such thing as "label". Spam filters may add a *header* indicating that a message is spam, but is a header a "label" or not? And if the spam filter does not add a header, but just directly moves the message (using sieve for example) to spam *folder* on the server? Is a *physical folder in the filesystem* a "label" or not? "Labels" per se exist only in some implementations of MUAs, most notably in Gmail web interface. So either the regulation is targeted particularly at Google, or it's authors never saw any other email system than Gmail and imagine that a "label" is some universal thing (which wonders me, because don't they have their internal email systems at Congress or governmental institutions?) Another question is, how are the operators supposed to distinguish political messages from non-political ones? The only reasonable method that comes to mind is submitting by political senders in advance to the operators a list of sender addresses that shouldn't be filtered. Operators can then whitelist them. But can't compiling a list of such sender be considered some form of "applying a label"? In that cse the regulation becomes self-contradictory: in order to comply with the regulation and "not apply a label" to political messages, you have first to "apply a label" to senders of those messages, a label that says "don't apply any label to messages from this sender". Just some doubts that - at least for me - show that this entire proposal doesn't make any sense. -- 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] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
Is there any hard data? This seems like thesis bait. I'd expect there to be a steady trickle of papers or reports with good data on political spam. Where are they? I hear lots of complaints by conservatives/Republicans that the spam filters are biased against them. If they send more spam, I'd expect more of their mail to get blocked. But that's because they are sending spam, not because the filters are biased. I'd really like to see hard data to back that up or refute it. How about a trial with the house and senate mail systems? :) -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
On 29 Jul 2022, at 14:32, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote:
I want to be sure that everyone here is aware of a piece of pending
legislation in the U.S. that is in committee in both the House and the
Senate right now. It's called the Political BIAS Emails Act of 2022
(BIAS is short for “Bias In Algorithm Sorting”), and it requires
that, and I quote:
Just in case others are inclined to try and convince their
representatives, I drafted and sent the below, use as desired.
```
I am sending this communication to request your support by opposing H.
R. 8160 ("Political Bias In Algorithm Sorting Emails Act of 2022"). I
have been a registered voter for [years] and intend to continue actively
participating in all upcoming elections.
Unsolicited electronic communications—spam—constitute a very serious
problem to all users of communication services regardless of social or
economic distinction. The industry has responded by creating a plethora
of mechanisms that help mitigate this issue, returning some semblance of
normality to our electronic mailboxes and phones.
An unfortunate reality is that in their efforts to reach as wide an
audience as possible, the political campaigns—or its
collaborators—very often step over industry best practices and end up
sending vast amounts of unsolicited communications. The special
treatment that political actors receive from CAN-SPAM further reduces
the remedies available for operators, tasked with handling the barrage
of unsolicited messages as well as the complaints of the disgruntled
public that gets targeted during the electoral season.
H. R. 8160 introduces the notion that users must directly apply a
"label" to an email prior to the operator being able to act accordingly.
This proposed arrangement would be detrimental to the user because it
requires an action to respond to what is in essence an unsolicited
message. Of note, said user has likely chosen the operator that provides
its email services consciously, considering factors that often include
the ability to block spam. By forcing users to receive these unsolicited
messages prior to any labeling, H. R. 8160 attacks individual choice.
Furthermore, well-funded political campaigns can produce an endless
stream of ephemeral "collaborators"—e.g.: connected organization or
joint fundraising committees—that could relentlessly send email
communications to users that have not solicited them. Even diligent
users promptly labeling those messages as spam, would continue to
receive them, without even the ability to have the operator assist with
its automated filters. This type of behavior has been considered abusive
for a long time in the email industry.
H. R. 8160 also introduces a loophole that could be exploited by
malicious third parties, which acting as political campaigns, could use
the special status granted by this legislation as a way to send spam and
phishing email—email designed to trick the recipient into some
nefarious activity—in vast quantities. Combined with the massive data
breaches that have been reported in the last few years alone, the
consequences of such exceptions as described in H. R. 8160 are
terrifying.
As currently written, H. R. 8160 will only serve to worsen the status
quo, by forcing operators to process and deliver the high volume of
unsolicited communications. Passing this unfortunate piece of
legislation is akin to providing a license to spam to all political
campaigns—and impostors—which will result in more user complaints
and additional costs for US-based operators.
Furthermore, by preempting US-based operators to take action against
unsolicited political communications, H. R. 8160 will cause users to
migrate to service providers outside the US, with the potential to
impact jobs, competitiveness and value generation within our own
economy.
In closing, please consider blocking H. R. 8160 and contrary to this
legislation, pushing for regulations that restore the ability of email
users to use their mailboxes.
Sincerely,
```
-lem
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 20:42:43 -0400, Brett Schenker via mailop wrote: >"They can say whatever they want, but .. I'm +1 with John. They have a >*lot* to learn about email and how it works" > >Unless the language has changed since I read it, it says you need to report >on how much goes to spam. If you send it to quarantine instead, you can >still report it as 0 going to spam, completely comply with it, and none can >get to the inbox. The Bozometric Tensor is severely strained in the neighborhood of who/whatever drafted this piece. "Label", indeed. mdr -- Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
"They can say whatever they want, but .. I'm +1 with John. They have a *lot* to learn about email and how it works" Unless the language has changed since I read it, it says you need to report on how much goes to spam. If you send it to quarantine instead, you can still report it as 0 going to spam, completely comply with it, and none can get to the inbox. On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 8:21 PM Michael Rathbun via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 13:11:24 -0700, Justin Scott via mailop > wrote: > > >Interestingly any email "operator" with fewer than 500 employees or less > >than $5 billion in annual revenue is exempt, so clearly targeted at the > >major providers and not self-hosted operators or small hosting companies, > >thankfully. > > If this misbegotten bit of sludge ever makes it to law status, I shall be > applying for an exclusion. I have less than US$1.00 revenue, and exactly > one > employee, but I DEMAND to be one of those operations included in its scope. > > Of the over 9,000 political emails that have arrived here from the RNC, the > Trump Organization, the saveamerica45 pac, conservativeintel.com ad > nauseam, not a single one has reached what might be construed as its > intended > recipient. > > And that ain't changing. (There is a small trickle of Democrat spam, but > that > gets suppressed as well.) > > The problem: not a single one of the addresses the injured party or > parties > intended to send to actually delivers to a human being who could have > agreed > to receive any large or small amount of used food. Every single one of > them > was scraped, purchased, traded for, stolen or made up out of various > elemental > gases. > > mdr > -- > "There are no laws here, only agreements." > -- Masahiko > > > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop > -- Brett Schenker Man of Many Things, Including 5B Consulting - http://www.5bconsulting.com Graphic Policy - http://www.graphicpolicy.com Twitter - http://twitter.com/bhschenker LinkedIn - http://www.linkedin.com/in/brettschenker ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 13:11:24 -0700, Justin Scott via mailop wrote: >Interestingly any email "operator" with fewer than 500 employees or less >than $5 billion in annual revenue is exempt, so clearly targeted at the >major providers and not self-hosted operators or small hosting companies, >thankfully. If this misbegotten bit of sludge ever makes it to law status, I shall be applying for an exclusion. I have less than US$1.00 revenue, and exactly one employee, but I DEMAND to be one of those operations included in its scope. Of the over 9,000 political emails that have arrived here from the RNC, the Trump Organization, the saveamerica45 pac, conservativeintel.com ad nauseam, not a single one has reached what might be construed as its intended recipient. And that ain't changing. (There is a small trickle of Democrat spam, but that gets suppressed as well.) The problem: not a single one of the addresses the injured party or parties intended to send to actually delivers to a human being who could have agreed to receive any large or small amount of used food. Every single one of them was scraped, purchased, traded for, stolen or made up out of various elemental gases. mdr -- "There are no laws here, only agreements." -- Masahiko ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
The humorous part is that they actually think "label" is in any way a reasonable word to use. Quite easy to comply with, I promise not to apply any labels! I'll just 5xx it... On 2022-07-29 13:32, Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote: I want to be sure that everyone here is aware of a piece of pending legislation in the U.S. that is in committee in both the House and the Senate right now. It's called the Political BIAS Emails Act of 2022 (BIAS is short for “Bias In Algorithm Sorting”), and it requires that, and I quote: “It shall be unlawful for an operator of an email service to use a filtering algorithm to apply a label to an email sent to an email account from a political campaign unless the owner or user of the account took action to apply such a label.” It is getting relatively very little press, and of course the chances of it passing are greater if nobody knows to oppose it. We've written an article about it, which includes what to do, whom to contact and how, etc., and which includes all relevant links, here: https://www.isipp.com/blog/do-you-want-political-email-to-bypass-spam-filters-and-go-directly-to-your-inbox-congress-does-heres-what-to-do/ Feel free to share - in fact please do, if this thing passes it's the camel's nose under the tent. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam 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 ___ 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] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
They can say whatever they want, but .. I'm +1 with John. They have a *lot* to learn about email and how it works. R's, Udeme On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 5:06 PM John Levine via mailop wrote: > It appears that Anne Mitchell via mailop said: > >I want to be sure that everyone here is aware of a piece of pending > legislation in the U.S. that is in > >committee in both the House and the Senate right now. It's called the > Political BIAS Emails Act of 2022 > >(BIAS is short for “Bias In Algorithm Sorting”), .. > > I see no reason to believe it has any chance of passage. It was > introduced last month by a collection of the usual right wing suspects > and it will almost certainly die without any further progress. > > It also has the problem that's it's an egregious violation of the > first amendment but with the current crop of judges, who knows. > > R's, > John > ___ > 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] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
It appears that Anne Mitchell via mailop said: >I want to be sure that everyone here is aware of a piece of pending >legislation in the U.S. that is in >committee in both the House and the Senate right now. It's called the >Political BIAS Emails Act of 2022 >(BIAS is short for “Bias In Algorithm Sorting”), .. I see no reason to believe it has any chance of passage. It was introduced last month by a collection of the usual right wing suspects and it will almost certainly die without any further progress. It also has the problem that's it's an egregious violation of the first amendment but with the current crop of judges, who knows. R's, John ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
Interestingly any email "operator" with fewer than 500 employees or less than $5 billion in annual revenue is exempt, so clearly targeted at the major providers and not self-hosted operators or small hosting companies, thankfully. The issues on how an email operator is supposed to identify what emails are from a legitimate political campaign isn't covered. The bill also includes reporting requirements broken down by major political parties, so they're supposed to know which party a given message is from as well, also not covered how that determination is to be made. In any case it sounds like it'd be a mess for the major providers to deal with. On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 11:34 AM Anne Mitchell via mailop wrote: > I want to be sure that everyone here is aware of a piece of pending > legislation in the U.S. that is in committee in both the House and the > Senate right now. It's called the Political BIAS Emails Act of 2022 (BIAS > is short for “Bias In Algorithm Sorting”), and it requires that, and I > quote: > > “It shall be unlawful for an operator of an email service to use a > filtering algorithm to apply a label to an email sent to an email account > from a political campaign unless the owner or user of the account took > action to apply such a label.” > > It is getting relatively very little press, and of course the chances of > it passing are greater if nobody knows to oppose it. > > We've written an article about it, which includes what to do, whom to > contact and how, etc., and which includes all relevant links, here: > > > https://www.isipp.com/blog/do-you-want-political-email-to-bypass-spam-filters-and-go-directly-to-your-inbox-congress-does-heres-what-to-do/ > > Feel free to share - in fact please do, if this thing passes it's the > camel's nose under the tent. > > Anne > > -- > Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law > CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy > Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam 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 > > ___ > 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] HR 8160 and SB 4409: The "You're not allowed to run political campaign email through your spam filter" act
I want to be sure that everyone here is aware of a piece of pending legislation in the U.S. that is in committee in both the House and the Senate right now. It's called the Political BIAS Emails Act of 2022 (BIAS is short for “Bias In Algorithm Sorting”), and it requires that, and I quote: “It shall be unlawful for an operator of an email service to use a filtering algorithm to apply a label to an email sent to an email account from a political campaign unless the owner or user of the account took action to apply such a label.” It is getting relatively very little press, and of course the chances of it passing are greater if nobody knows to oppose it. We've written an article about it, which includes what to do, whom to contact and how, etc., and which includes all relevant links, here: https://www.isipp.com/blog/do-you-want-political-email-to-bypass-spam-filters-and-go-directly-to-your-inbox-congress-does-heres-what-to-do/ Feel free to share - in fact please do, if this thing passes it's the camel's nose under the tent. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam 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 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
