[Scspamcop] Re: hillary clinton campaign spam

[Twayne]

> Twayne wrote:
>>> geekyguy wrote:
>>>> I'm receiving these campaign support requests at an email address
>>>> that was somehow harvested or obtained against my will.
>>> The U.S. CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 exempts political speech and,
>>> therefore, bulk email sent by politicians.
>>
>> Can you cite a source for that information please?
>
> Your quoting somehow overlooked me, but since it was my statement you
> are challenging (not geekyguy's) I'll respond.

Woof!  I got msyelf into a LOT of trouble yesterday.  Next time I'll 
wait for my brain to rev up first.  Sorry about the mistarget.  I'm not 
saying you aren't entitled to your own opinions and interpretations. 
However, I don't necessarily agree with all of them:

>
> <quote>
> SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
>
> ...
>
> (A) IN GENERAL- The term `commercial electronic mail message' means
> any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the
> commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or
> service (including content on an Internet website operated for a
> commercial purpose). </quote>
>
>> There is no such thing as "force-subscribed".
>
> There most certainly is.
>
> This passage in a tutorial at http://www.databack.com/tutorials.htm is
> typical:

While I understand what you're saying I still have to respectfully 
disagree with it. I prefer to look at it a little more directly than 
that quote:   If I did not subscribe to something then I am *not* 
subscribed to it.  It may *appear* that way to the other end, but the 
perception is in error; I did not sucscribe.  It is their fault they 
think I subscribed because they allowed an improper signing up 
situation.  That is not my fault and not something I can do much about 
except to refuse to unsub from something I never subbed to, and to treat 
the incoming spam as exactly what it is; spam (bulk, unsolicited, 
unwanted and unexpected).
   So "force-subscribed" really means it "looks like" I subscribed and 
nothing else.
>
> <quote>
> Why Mailing List Subscription Confirmation a.k.a. "Confirmed Opt-in"
> Is Required
>
> When someone requests to join your list, they are first sent a
> "confirmation message". They must reply to that message before they
> are added to the list. There are several reasons why this is required.
>
> 1. If you use a public form on your web site to accept subscription
> requests, anyone can enter any address into your form. Without
> confirmation, this means that anyone's address could be
> "force-subscribed" to your list.
> </quote>

Understood, in the context of that paragraph and article.  However, *I* 
never subscribed, therefore I can not be subscribed or have been 
"force-subscribed".  "Force-subscribed" IMO gives legitimacy to those 
who refuse to use opt-in confirmation, many of whom are simply 
collecting addresses for spam lists.  I did not subscribe.  By today's 
standards they allowed improper subscription activities and it is their 
job to figure out how to run and maintain a good mailing list.
   It might sound picky, but the difference in perception is pretty 
large.
>
>>> It is almost always true that one does not want to unsubscribe from
>>> a list they never subscribed to in the first place. However if I
>>> were receiving this - which is legitimately from the HC campaign -
>>> I would try to unsub first and report them only if the unwanted
>>> emails continue.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> The source is entirely relevant - you just said yourself "There is
> more to it than just content, which is one of the worst ways to tell
> what spam is, IMO." If an email is what Mike Easter calls
> "straightup" it could be a simple mistake. Not everyone who
> administers lists is a techie. Educating those who do administer
> lists is more productive than isolating them.

On some few occasions it is obvious the spammer is a newbie and/or 
simply did something due to their own ignorance.  IFF I spot that, which 
I seldom do because I seldom see the content of any of my spams (they're 
just sent off, not read).  A single complaint is highly unlikely to get 
anyone's account suspended, but the ISP warning is going to make a 
pretty big impression on them IFF they care.  When I get the confirming 
e-mails back, it's less than a second or so to glance at the parses and 
if I see kornet, .cn, .ma, .za, etc. etc., I glancea the addresses, and 
off it it goes.   Occasionlly I'll pull out one that looks like it could 
use some prejudice added to the report, but that's the exception, not 
the rule.   That's seldom going to be a newbie.  Only when the parse 
results look ligitimate will I bother to see what's up with the e-mail I 
received, which could be one of the newbies, but that hasn't happened in 
so long I don't recall the last one.

>
>> N E V E R  unsubscribe to anything you didn't subscribe to.
>
> Never say never. Being flexible means knowing when to recognize the
> exception.

Uhh, "usually" never unsub?  No: That's bad advice.  I'll stick with 
"never" because there can always be exceptions to rules and "never" 
makes a point.  I have not yet found the need to unsubscribe from 
anything I did not subscribe to.  I've been tricked a couple of times in 
the past, but that's a different story.

>
>> By definition it is impossible to unsubscribe from something one has
>> not subscribed to.
>
> A silly and unhelpful semantic argument. If I subscribe twayne to a
> list that doesn't use a closed-loop confirmation then you are
> subscribed, like it or not. You then have the power to unsubscribe,
> and even enlighten the administer. No, it's not something I do very
> often, but there are times when it is appropriate.

No, that's a very valid arguement and a simple one.  If you subscribe me 
to a list then I am going to send complaints on the spam that you 
generate.  Nowadays since most people know to check on IP locations (not 
just the IPs) it's not hard to tell I didn't subscribe if they check 
into it soon enough.  If they cared.  I doubt very much we're 
geographically connected.
   If you "subscribe twayne to a list", you have then caused someone to 
beocme a spammer who, in the first place, is not using the requisite 
confirmed optin procedures you referenced yourslef earlier in this mail. 
That makes you guilty of bandwidth theft and a couple of other things I 
could get into but don't feel the need.

So the unhelpful and semantic arguement you reference falls apart in a 
hurry considering your own previous words and references.  It gives me 
minor pause for thought when I consider that you may well be conversing 
with actual spammers thinking you are doing someone a favor by educating 
them.  The ONLY time I've done that is when I already know the source 
and have a line of communicaitons I can use with them.  And then it's a 
scold with a link or three to how to do a mailing list, and an order to 
remove my name from their lists and when I will begin reporting their 
mails as spams.  Oh, and an offer of an apology if they can prove I 
subscribed.   No one has ever even attempted that last part.

Regards,

Twayne