view release on metacpan or  search on metacpan

share/SpamAssassin/easy_ham/00015.4d7026347ba7478c9db04c70913e68fd  view on Meta::CPAN

From fork-admin@xent.com  Thu Aug 22 16:37:41 2002
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
Delivered-To: zzzz@localhost.netnoteinc.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB9843F99
	for <zzzz@localhost>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:37:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for zzzz@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:37:40 +0100 (IST)
Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7MFbVZ12617 for <zzzz@spamassassin.taint.org>;
    Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:37:32 +0100
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id D8D5029409A; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from sunserver.permafrost.net (u172n16.hfx.eastlink.ca
    [24.222.172.16]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3703F294099 for
    <fork@xent.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.123.179] (helo=permafrost.net) by
    sunserver.permafrost.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id
    17htxj-0008Ad-00 for <fork@xent.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:33:31 -0300
Message-Id: <3D6505C3.2020405@permafrost.net>
From: Owen Byrne <owen@permafrost.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Subject: The case for spam
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: fork-admin@xent.com
Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com
X-Beenthere: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:fork@spamassassin.taint.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
    <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:39:47 -0300

SpamAssassin is hurting democracy!
Owen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/3900215.htm

Internet can level the political playing field
By Mike McCurry and Larry Purpuro

NOT many months from now, people across the country will experience one 
of the great recurring features of American democracy. At shopping 
malls, on factory floors, at church socials and even on our front 
stoops, we will be approached by individuals who want to represent us in 
public office. While chances are high that we won't know them 
personally, they will walk up to us, offer a handshake and a flier and 
ask for our votes.

Just as technology is affecting every other area of communication, it 
has begun to affect the way political candidates communicate with voters.

In this year's GOP gubernatorial primary, California Secretary of State 
Bill Jones, who faced better-funded candidates, acquired the e-mail 
addresses of more than a million potential California voters and sent 
each an unsolicited e-mail asking for support.

That day, he might have chosen any of the more traditional -- and more 
expensive -- methods of contacting voters, such as direct mail, radio 
spots or TV ads. But he spent only about 2 cents per message, instead of 
35 cents or more per message for direct mail or in another medium.

Had Jones chosen direct mail, radio or TV, that communication would have 
been equally ``unsolicited,'' as defined in the e-mail world. Few voters 
would have ``opted in'' to receive campaign information from Jones 
through any of those channels.

The response to Jones' e-mail effort, however, was swift and intense. He 
was lambasted by anti-spam advocates, and media coverage was almost 
entirely negative. To be fair, some of Jones' tactics could have been 
refined. He used a less-than-perfect list and no standard-practice 
``paid for'' disclaimer in the message.

His detractors, however, attacked him not for his tactical miscues but 
because the e-mail was sent unsolicited. In fact, Jones' online campaign 
may have been his most visible asset. In an era of cynicism toward money 
in politics -- money typically spent on other unsolicited communication 
mediums -- Jones tried to level the playing field.

No one likes commercial spam. It is irrelevant and untargeted and can be 
highly intrusive and even offensive. But as a sophisticated society, 
it's time to differentiate commercial spam from very different 
unsolicited e-mail sent by political candidates to voters.

The debate is particularly relevant in light of legislation in Congress