Is the Dean Campaign Spamming? 432
bluelark writes "A few days ago, a friend of mine fowarded to me some spam apparently from the Howard Dean campaign. The sender's return address, however, was dean@america.propulsive.net. In addition, this is not the Texas email we've all heard about. Being bored, I did some research, and I found some intriguing results. If you are interested, I've posted the the technical details and the the spam. Even though the images in the email are being served from Venezuela, the links in the body of the spam are actually redirects from a marketing partner called eScriptions.net to a Dean for America registration page. It appears that the campaign is outsourcing their email with some dubious marketing partners who are then using notorious spamhauses to send out the actual email. Why does a supposedly "net savvy" campaign even think for one second that this approach is acceptable?"
Perhaps.... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) worry about doing it yourself, and
2) being able to blame it on someone else when it all goes badly (or is revealed as spam).
All bulk email houses are 'suspicious' (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact is that blacklists are not organized half as well as they would have people believe. If you want to send bulk mail you use an outsourcer because unless you do most of your messages will get classified as junk. Getting round spam filters turns out to be the main technical skill the outsourcers provide.
The problem with spam is that it has got to the point where everything becomes a he-said she-said argument. There is actually no way to know if either side is telling the truth. Try putting up a pro-israeli or pro-palestinian web site and you will find you are blacklisted for spamming before you send out a single email.
All 'outsourced maillers' are listed on blacklists, most of them for good reason. There is absolutely no way that an outsourced email provider can know if an email list provided by a client is legit or spam.
The problem here is that the protocols simply don't work as well as they should. We don't have a way to know who is behaving honestly and who is not. That is a protocol bug. It is fixable but only if we face up to the fact that we need to fix it and get the email providers to deploy whatever changes are necessary.
That is not going to happen in time for the 2004 election. But think of this, until the Internet US politics has been game where you take as much money in bribes from corporate America and then you spend your whole time in office paying back favors. Bush and Cheney are paying back $2000 for every $1 they collected from the super-rich. Next election they plan to spend $200 million. That means another $400 billion to be spent on tax cuts for the super rich when the budget deficit is heading for $700 billion. Don't think you are getting any of that unless you are one of the insider investors. Otherwise you are more likely to find that your investment in Bush reaps the same results as your investment in 'Kenny Boy' Lay's Enron.
Re:All bulk email houses are 'suspicious' (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not call this a skill. If I make a filter (not a spam filter, an EMAIL FILTER), then I do not want what I am filtering.
That means that you should not attempt to get around my filter to send me what you beileve I would like to recieve.
If I hang up on you, I do not want to buy your product, nor will I ever. Learn from this technique.
Re:All bulk email houses are 'suspicious' (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a real world example. I wrote an application so that staff in our college could go to a web page and send mail to the students of our college, either all students or by class year. Not wanting every person to see every other person's e-mail, I initially set this program up to bcc everyone and send a copy to the Deans as the to: recipients so they would know what the students got and I put a generic address as the from: so the students could hit reply and have it go to a central account but they could also see the deans' addresses to e-mail them.
Unfortunately, this got flagged by places like Hotmail and Yahoo as spam because I had just bcc'ed a large number of people.
So I had to send the messages out one at a time as individual messages, not as one message with a huge number of recipients.
I believe it is this kind of spam filter, cases where there is a legitimate reason to send mail to thousands of recipients without letting the recipients see each other's addresses, that the original poster was referring to.
Re:All bulk email houses are 'suspicious' (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a real world example. I wrote an application so that staff in our college could go to a web page and send mail to the students of our college, either all students or by class year. Not wanting every person to see every other person's e-mail, I initially set this program up to bcc everyone and send a copy to the Deans as the to: recipients so they would know what the students got and I put a generic address as the from: so the students could hit reply and have it go to a central account but they could also see the deans' addresses to e-mail them.
Unfortunately, this got flagged by places like Hotmail and Yahoo as spam because I had just bcc'ed a large number of people.
So I had to send the messages out one at a time as individual messages, not as one message with a huge number of recipients.
I believe it is this kind of spam filter, cases where there is a legitimate reason to send mail to thousands of recipients without letting the recipients see each other's addresses, that the original poster was referring to.
And that is a legitimate use. I can understand that, and I hadn't considered spam filters that people put in place without knowing what is filtered. I.E. Yahoo and Hotmail's spam filtering.
But your point is also valid when considering what I would want or not. I would want something from a university that I was attending, and would not want anything from someone shilling their campaign through my email.
If I want to take the measures to learn about your campaign, then I will do so. I do not want it force fed to me (aside from the media.)
If it's okay for a campaign to mass email, then it is okay for a company trying to sell their products through mass email.
Which means, I get a lot of mass email. I already get more junkmail through the normal postal system than I do actual email. I honestly just don't want it. Do I not have a choice in this matter?
Re:All bulk email houses are 'suspicious' (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why I have test accounts on all of the major free e-mail providers, so I can see what the students will get when we send them messages. I'm noticing a fair chunk of our students using free providers instead of the university's mail servers because the accounts will be around after they graduate.
I would want so
Re: Trusted Systems (Score:3, Insightful)
Well it might be a natural consequence and trade off for such a promiscuous system.
In my free hotmail inbox, I routinely get salacious emails whose subjects are obviously random walks with space
Re:All bulk email houses are 'suspicious' (Score:5, Interesting)
All 'outsourced maillers' are listed on blacklists, most of them for good reason. There is absolutely no way that an outsourced email provider can know if an email list provided by a client is legit or spam.
Owning and running an ISP, I think I can respond rather well to this point.
Bullshit
My customers who send mass emails know that they are being watched. I have an idea of how many customers each has, and I correlate that to their list sizes. If one suddenly comes up with 1,000,000 names, guess what? I know it's not legit.
I had a telemarketing computer call one day with a message trying to rent mailing lists to the business. Near the end, the guy mentioned that I could rent their "35,000,000 piece opt-in email list". Bullshit. Nobody has the names of 35M people who want to receive trash in their email simply because there aren't 35M people like that on the entire planet.
My customers likewise know that I am prone to pick a random email address from their list and ask them for more information about that person. Real name, company name, and telephone number. And I occassionally call them to verify. I don't have to worry about spammers.
A little common sense goes a long way. You're obviously a Howard Dean fan, but let's face it, he's spamming. The argument that "he doesn't know any better", which is apparently what you're trying to make here, worked the first time.
This is no longer "the first time". Understand?
Michael
Re:Perhaps.... (Score:5, Funny)
1) worry about doing it yourself, and
2) being able to blame it on someone else when it all goes badly (or is revealed as spam).
I thought being net saavy meant I had excellent karma on Slashdot, used pine to get my email, and lynx to view the web.
Now I have to start over?... What if I mention linux a few times?
Re:Perhaps.... (Score:3, Funny)
It is GNU/Linux
Dean does not control what volunenteers do... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dean does not control what volunenteers do... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dean does not control what volunenteers do... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perhaps.... (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, so let's get this out of the way. Political people have to eat crow on a regular basis when campaign tactics appear to be silly or stupid or craven or whatnot. This is just such a case.
Instead of coming up with innovative reasons why Dean is right or shouldn't be blamed, they should be contacting their man via his volunteer network and getting him to shape up. Every presidential candidate has had to apologize or reform when his campaign does something embarrassing. This is just such a case.
Oh no! (Score:2, Funny)
</sarcasm>
Re:Oh no! (Score:2, Informative)
Still, it's one more example of how technocracy will never come to be.
Re:Oh no! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Dean campaign has been against spam heavily in the past. They do not support anyone who sends spam in their name. In this case, it was simply that the company that did their marketing misrepresented themselves as being an opt-in email list, but instead sent mass mailings to large numbers of people without Dean's consent. I can't really see how Dean can be blamed for something that was done without his knowledge or approval.
Net Savvy. Not (Score:4, Interesting)
Now how can they defend that? Spamming is worse than junkmail as the recipient has to pay rather than the sender. And before anyone say just press the delete key how do you do that on that average 3000 spams I get a month?
Rus
Re:Net Savvy. Not (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Net Savvy. Not (Score:3, Interesting)
So unless there is a resonable chance you could want the email, don't send it.
Who decides what resonable chance is?
Get a spam filter.
Re:Net Savvy. Not (Score:3, Insightful)
By that number we're talking ~100 spams a day. You either need a new email address, or some better filtering. If you're hitting delete on 100 mails a day, you're wasting your own time.
Dept. of Nasty Tricks (Score:4, Interesting)
Just a thought.
sPh
Re:Dept. of Nasty Tricks (Score:5, Informative)
After the Dean campaign was presented with clear cut evidence as to the nature of emailresponse.net, they investigated promptly and terminated their relationship with the company that same day.
-- jetlag --
Re:Dept. of Nasty Tricks (Score:2, Funny)
Although to retain that critical "slashdot bloc", Dean should probably also make some sort of public apology, perhaps via another mass e-mailing.
Re:Dept. of Nasty Tricks (Score:5, Insightful)
After the Dean campaign was presented with clear cut evidence as to the nature of emailresponse.net, they investigated promptly and terminated their relationship with the company that same day.
Why wasn't this tidbit of info in the original post? Sounds like the submitter may have had an axe to grind. Slashdot mods should be more vigilant and not allow this kind of thing to slip by, the things at stake are too important.
Re:Dept. of Nasty Tricks (Score:5, Funny)
What? A post which includes all sides of the story? You must be new.
Re:Dept. of Nasty Tricks (Score:2)
Re:Dept. of Honest Mistakes (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a little unsure of the submitter's motives in posting a two-week old story to Slashdot, because if anyone bothers to read the rest of the blog, they'll note that the Dean campaign severed its ties to the Spamhaus when it was informed about the actions being taken in its name.
More balanced coverage from Spamvertized.org [spamvertized.org]
It looks like an honest mistake, and its a shame that some people will fixate on this misstep.
Re:Dept. of Honest Mistakes (Score:2)
Definately not a Dean supporter here, but things like this can happen to any organization.
Sometimes overzealous supporters can be your greatest enemies.
Re:Dept. of Honest Mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
But when the allegedly net-savvy Dean does the same, it's an honest mistake.
Re:Dept. of Honest Mistakes (Score:2)
And how large did they think this list of "please send me emails asking for my support on a presidential campaign" would be?
Honest, and "opt-in" email techniques are hardly words that you'd associate with each other.
Why does a supposedly "net savvy" campaign... (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably for the same reasons spammers everywhere continue to do it: some people will click on the pretty colors - they get results.
Re:Why does a supposedly "net savvy" campaign... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Do you really think he was being malicious as opposed to someone in his team being moronic?
Who is calling the Dean Campaign 'Net Savvy'? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who is calling the Dean Campaign 'Net Savvy'? (Score:2, Insightful)
They refer to him as Net savvy not because of his technological prowess (please, he's a 50-something year old man -- he's a doctor, not a computer scientist, OK?). They do it because the Net freaks like him. Face it, a bunch of us Net freaks are liberals and gays and he's the candidate who supports gay rights.
Spamming would shatter that support.
If he's really net savvy (Score:5, Funny)
Here it is. (Score:5, Informative)
What they mean is (Score:2)
Re:What they mean is (Score:2)
Definitely cheers to the Dean campaign for using the Net to boost support, it's certainly a good idea. If only the Bush campaign would do the same, although I do give them credit for making a public database of all their campaign contributions.
Re:What they mean is (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, Then I don't want Howard Dean to be my canidate. I was misinformed.
I will only vote for people who can configure a Cisco router. That way, I am assurded that their political stances, and agendas coincide with mine.
Re:Who is calling the Dean Campaign 'Net Savvy'? (Score:2)
Dean Campaigners are Net Savvy (Score:5, Interesting)
But even without that, using Meetup and MoveOn, blogs and online contributions does make you net-savvy, because it is ground-breaking and it is working. They have used the internet as a tool to organize, raise money, and turn Dean from a little-known name into the front runner in the democratic field. That, my friend, makes you net savvy. Measure that against Bush, who won't even let you email him anymore.
Re:Dean Campaigners are Net Savvy (Score:3, Insightful)
If everyone's so net savvy, why are they spamming people?
This may be the very first candidate to be taken down via an anti-spam backlash.
Re:Who is calling the Dean Campaign 'Net Savvy'? (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you looked at deanforamerica.com [deanforamerica.com]? I'd say that site is a good indicator of Internet-awareness. The man has a *blog* [blogforamerica.com], for crying out loud! Actually, all the Democratic candidates are trying to capitalize on the Internet, which is IMHO a Good Thing, though it's taking some of them longer than others.
Contrast Dean's site with Bush's [georgewbush.com] (ooh, shiney) for a good illustration of why the former is considered "net-savvy." (yes i know incumbents don't need to mobilize as early as challengers, yes i know Bush's site is a "temporary site," but Dean's campaign is still a masterful example of how to mobilize the internet community. i long for the day when the *president* writes a daily weblog.)
Oh, and if you think Dean is another Democrat who is against everything Slashdotters hold dear, check out some of his posts [lessig.org] on Lawrence Lessig's blog [lessig.org]. (Kucinich has some interesting things to say here [lessig.org] as well. He's even pro-GPL!)
Re:Who is calling the Dean Campaign 'Net Savvy'? (Score:2)
Re:Who is calling the Dean Campaign 'Net Savvy'? (Score:2)
Because blogs mean NET SAAVY!
My 12 year old sister will be thrilled today when she learns that she is considered net saavy on Slashdot.
Of course I will have to explain to her what Slashdot is.... and what a url is... and favourite it for her... and...
Well.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, here it is on slashdot - and probably will end up being posted on numerous other sites, blogs, etc.
And as the old saying goes "Any publicity, is good publicity"
Re:Well.... (Score:3, Insightful)
This kind of publicity is not good. The Dean campaign has been severely aided by its Net characteristics and advantage, or so they say. By alienating the Internet audience, this is not good publicity. Which is, frankly, why I don't think they've been spamming.
Too dumb.
He failed to do one thing (Score:3, Insightful)
First things first, ask the accused. If they admit to it, then you don't have to waste all the time on researching it. If any other answer, then the research could be done to verify the answer.
Re:He failed to do one thing (Score:2)
Political speech protected (Score:2)
Speech yes, Hacking no (Score:2)
Re:Speech yes, Hacking no (Score:2)
Microsoft has taught me that using an open relay is actually a function!
It's a service that the outgoing mail server and the host provide me. Not destructive hacking.
Re:Political speech protected (Score:2)
Stick your political speech on a website and the people who are interested will see it. Keep your political opinions out of my inbox, however.
Re:Political speech protected (Score:2)
Regulating unsolicited email is not regulating speech. That's the fallacy people tend to get caught up in
Method, not content, is what makes spam. (Score:3, Interesting)
(As to the "Consent, not method" definition: I think this definition is less useful than "bulk email from a stranger" because currently you do have a right to other forms of non-consent based communications, so courts might not look kindly on laws that take that right away. Especi
Is political speech spam? (Score:2, Interesting)
If we did not have any spam, the kinds listed above, would anyone complain about emails from persons running for public office?
I think one of the most important jobs a citizen has is to review the candidates running for office and pick the best one. To that end, I do not think an email here or there about something important is a bad thing.
Then again, I guess those of us who
Re:Is political speech spam? (Score:2)
Yes. I don't want to pay, through my ISP bill, for some politician to spew forth his propaganda. When he puts up posters, he pays; when he takes out newspaper advertisements, he pays; when he spams, I pay, and that's the chief problem.
Re:Is political speech spam? (Score:2)
You strive to set a dangerous precedent.
Re:Is political speech spam? (Score:3, Insightful)
Spam as a campaign tool, being deregulated, is also not required to have the same truth content that the FCC would require in print, radio, or television media. This is what some would call a Bad Thing. George W. Bush sending 250,000,000 emails to everyone in America outlining his major strides forward in civi
Re:Is political speech spam? (Score:2)
How about campaign emails from a city council election sent to non-residents of the city ... I've recieved many campaign emails from cities I have never heard of in states I have never visited. I get political spam for congressional races in states I can't vote in. It's spam.
How about pol
YES (Score:5, Insightful)
How does this crap get modded up? Any unsolicited, mass, annoying contact is spam. Why would you even think that it is ok to send someone email that they may or may not care about?
Then again, I guess those of us who are interested in politics could sign up with the individual campaigns to recieve emails.
Duh.
I don't want some politician to decide what is important for me to know. I know how to seek out information I am interested in, thank you.
Re:YES (Score:2)
Political speech is legally treated differently than commercial speech simply because of the fear that too many restrictions can stop political messages from getting to citizens, particularly when those messages are coming from people outside the political mainstream. Hitting the delete button a few times for political spam is much easier than throwing away physical junk mail delivering a political mess
Re:Is political speech spam? (Score:2)
A hundred unwanted messages littered throughout my inbox impacts me the same no matter if the "important" message involves a product, candidate, or issue.
If I wa
I don't even live in the US... (Score:2)
The worst part is that my e-mail address ends in a
Or maybe the spammers are inflating their mailing lists with Canadians.
Re:Is political speech spam? (Score:2)
Spam isn't about content, it's about behavior. Whether it's porn, politics, or poetry, if it's sent in bulk to people who didn't ask for it, it's spam.
The same principle applies in the real world. If I come to your house with a bullhorn at 4 am and
Foreigners geting the email? (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
It Works (Score:2, Interesting)
Have we learned nothing from Nixon? (Score:2, Troll)
RTFA yourself (Score:2)
After the Dean campaign was presented with clear cut evidence as to the nature of emailresponse.net, they investigated promptly and terminated
Its politics, morals are optional (Score:2)
Its all about telling people what they want to hear, so you get elected. Then start work on YOUR agenda, not your voters.. Which normally involves sucking more money out of them while reducing their rights.
Ah, spam, politics, and good ol' capitalism (Score:2, Interesting)
I got two of 'em, here's one (with headers) (Score:2)
Received: from mapsyknits.com (adsl-199-245-138-8-cust-271-dsl.bac2.com [199.245.138.8])
by mail.hiwaay.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h7HArlAt981759
for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:53:47 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:53:47 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <200308171053.h7HArlAt981759@mail.hiwaay.net>
Received: (qmail 1369 invoked by uid 0); 16 Aug 2003 22:40:42 -0000
From: Recall Team <noreply@mapsyknits.com>
Subject:
Maybe, or (Score:3, Interesting)
The other possibility is that this might actually work. They are probably sending messages to 'known democrats' who signed their emails when they registered for the party or whatever (I live in IA and I've been getting a lot of calls from democrats and pollsters on my Cell, which they must have gotten from my registration).
Btw, just to defend the fact that I'm actually 'registered' to a political party. I liked both McCain and Bill Bradley (who ran against Gore in '2000), but the democratic primary was closer to my dorm room (the republican one was all the way across campus) and I figured there was a better chance of meeting a hot chick at the dem. Primary. Also, a friend of mine knew a guy working on the Bradley campaign so we were invited to the campaign HQ in Des Moines after the vote, which was kind of cool.
In fact, I did meet a really hot chick and she decided to come up to Des Moines with us, which was pretty cool.
It also worked out well, as I fucking hate bush.
Re:Maybe, or (Score:2)
Screw him. We have more spam now than we know what to do with. We don't need him adding to it.
Basically (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds resonable.
I don't think he's net savy, as much as he is resonable to needs to the internet generation, or more than likely using this as the thing to set him a part, and make him a great canidate for president if the stock in people caring about the internet grows.
Yee Haw.
campaign spamming (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference? Dean for America stopped working with the spamming company the same day. Did Bush-Cheney '04 Inc. ? No, However, after cryptome posted the e-mail, the email used in the spam was unsubscribed from the list, and an automatic confirmatory e-mail sent. This despite the fact that John, who runs Cryptome, never subscribed, and never sent in an e-mail requesting to be unsubscribed. There is no evidence that the unsolicited e-mailing has been stopped.
It's easy to say Dean for America isn't net-savvy. I mean they sent out some unsolicted e-mail right? But how many companies stop using spam once they realize what their marketing department was doing?
How many do it the same day? Bush, despite a record breaking campaign warchest still is soliciting by spam. Dean isn't. That tells me who is savvy.
Gryftir
Lt. Calley Defense? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't help but imagine what the reaction among the YRO crowd would be if this had been the Bush campaign.
Re:Lt. Calley Defense? (Score:4, Interesting)
But Dean uses a blog!
Dean takes contributions online!
Dean's an opportunist like the rest. He was a nobody, then realized he had some support with the "net-savvy" crowd, and embraced it. Big frickin' deal.
Does he run the damn blog? Does he code his own site? It's like saying John Kerry is "print-savvy" because his campaign makes yard signs.
If you like Dean because you like his ideas, great. But let's not get carried away with labelling him "net-savvy" because his campaign saw an opportunity to capitalize.
This has already been resolved. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This has already been resolved. (Score:2, Informative)
Do not belive for a SECOND that they didnt know what they were doing. Get a grip dude. They are ALL like that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:you know... (Score:5, Informative)
That being said, isn't anyone on that side of the aisle worried about Dean? I find him to be the easiest Democrat to beat in the fall of 2004. This guy can be turned directly into the scion of leftist antiwar evil with a few carefully placed TV ads.
I have a few worries about his general electability, not because i think he would do a bad job of course, but just because of the smear campaign Bush is likely to run.
However it has been pointed out that Dean's views on gun-control, that it should be left up to the states without any more federal involvement, is likely to pick him up a lot of "single-issue" NRA types. The fact that he's a fiscal conservative who balanced the budget in Vermont, making it one of the very few states with a budget surplus in this time of recession, is likely to pick up some of the Republicans who are more concerned that Bush has turned at 10 year $6 trillion surpluss in a $4 trillion deficit.
The "civil unions" issue will probably hurt him, but he apparently did a very good job of turning a lot people's views around in Vermont, who were initially very against the idea, as long as he stuck with "civil union" rather than "gay marriage." Conservatives get upset about the sanctity of marriage, and homosexuals get upset about the lack of social benefits inherit in marriage, civil unions are a good compromise that doesn't torque off either side off too badly.
Howard Dean: The Un-Bush (Score:3, Interesting)
Dean will win the Democratic primary. Dean will lose the general election.
But then, the democratic race has always been a race to find out who is going to lose to Bush. The country has moved frightenly to the right in the past few years, and despite how many fucked up things Bush does, he's still popular. IMO, Dean has the best chance to win, but it's still not enough.
First and foremost, the democratic base likes to see someone with a
Re:you know... (Score:4, Insightful)
The democrats know this and so does the rest of the country. I say if you know you are going to lose anyway run somebody who is not afraid the tell the truth and who is not afraid to call republicans names. The republicans get to call all democrats traitors and traitors so the democrats need someone to call them facists and racists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But who is the spammer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not Spam (Score:3, Insightful)
Official Dean For America Response (Score:5, Informative)
There are currently no third party vendors authorized to send email on behalf of Dean for America and none planned in the future.
Please send any additional complaints to abuse@deanforamerica.com [mailto].
Who are the two vendors? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, are you guys going to put a press release out on the site noting that the campaign has terminated the relationship with emailresults.net and eScriptions.com? Those are the two vendors you are referring to, correct?
Re:Official Dean For America Response (Score:4, Funny)
now what were we talking about?
Re:Official Dean For America Response (Score:3, Interesting)
A simple link to your slashdot profiles from a page on deanforamerica.com that isn't linked to from anything but your reply to me or anyone else who asks this question would serve as proof.
I'm a Dean supporter, but I'm also a cynic.
Verify first before publicizing (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why I continue to trust our crappy corporate media more than independent media.
Political speech is exempt from spam label (Score:4, Informative)
From the FTC donotcall site [ftc.gov]:
Will the National Do Not Call Registry cover all telemarketing calls?
Placing your number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop most telemarketing calls, but not all. Some types of calls are exempt. Political organizations, charities, telephone surveyors, and the business of insurance, to the extent that it is regulated by state law, are permitted to call you.
So if this is specifically exempted from the telephone spam rules, presumably it will also be exempted from any future email spam rules, and thus has already been declared perfectly acceptable behavior.
Nothing surprising here ... (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry guys, if you were expecting him to be different from the majority of other politicians then you will be truly disappointed. He might be better than Bush or Lieberman, but not much. If UCE will get him into the Oval Office then UCE it is.
Rutland Herald - Newspapers sue Dean for access to schedule [rutlandherald.com]
Portsmouth Herald - A medical marijuana campaig report card [seacoastonline.com]
My advice: pick another horse.
Re:spam and politics (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the itch here is how email systems get mucked up.
The Dean campaign is lean and mean so we should expect their auditing to be lackluster. Its not surprising that in the course of pulling favors they end up enlisting some information mercenaries.
But as a heads up they should probably keep things simple and clean. Participate in respected forums and maybe court some intelligent folks from around here to
Re:Dean hasn't earned it. (Score:2)