Some questions and thoughts on HR 8160 and SB 4409 and the CAN-SPAM Act... Are operators covered by HR 8160 and SB 4409 still allowed to block emails that do not comply with the CAN-SPAM Act?
Of the 7 requirements in the FTC's CAN-SPAM Act compliance guide (https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business), my experience as a recipient has been that political campaigns' emails routinely violate several of the CAN-SPAM Act's requirements. I'm not a lawyer but a law that requires persons to allow the delivery of otherwise law-breaking emails seems at best, wrong. Perhaps the public reporting requirements in HR 8160 and SB 4409 will enable "operators" to provide iron-clad proof of CAN-SPAM Act violations, allowing penalties to be applied directly to the violating political campaigns. Sort of like getting a speeding ticket in the mail because you sped through a speed camera. If HR 8160 and SB 4409 included language mandating operators report CAN-SPAM Act violations, with proof sufficient to assess penalties straightaway, wouldn't that be a good thing? On the one hand, I don't like HR 8160 and SB 4409 because operators are not (and IMHO should not be deemed to be) common carriers. But on the other hand, we all know that CAN-SPAM Act enforcement is abysmal presently, and I suspect that some decent percentage of the garbage emails we all need to filter out would be reduced if senders and their agents (SendGrid, MailGun, etc.) were more fearful of CAN-SPAM Act penalties being assessed routinely. I don't like speed trap cameras personally, but they are effective at reducing accidents in areas where speed is a routine contributor to accidents in that area. Interested to hear what others think. Regards, Mark _________________________________________________________________ L. Mark Stone, Founder North America's Leading Zimbra VAR/BSP/Training Partner For Companies With Mission-Critical Email Needs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Rathbun via mailop" <[email protected]> To: "mailop" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 8:51:42 PM Subject: ** CAUTION! SUSPICIOUS EMAIL **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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
