aerc/lib/jwz/testdata/0019.a8a1b2767e83b3be653e4af0148e1897.eml

From: fork-admin@xent.com  Thu Aug 22 16:37:41 2002
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
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: fork@example.com
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
Precedence: bulk
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
that would constitute the first federal law to directly address spam. We
believe e-mail is no more intrusive than direct mail, telemarketing or
TV advertising when it comes to politicians seeking to reach voters. A
simple link in good e-mail campaigns allows recipients to opt out of
future mailings. Direct mail takes at least a phone call or stamp to be
taken off a list, and viewers must repeatedly endure TV ads.

When a candidate lacks a large campaign war chest, he or she can use the
Internet to provide constituents with information to better prepare them
to perform their civic duty of casting educated votes. With more than 60
percent of all potential voters in this country possessing e-mail
accounts, it makes sense that political candidates use this medium.

Candidates might avoid some of the tactical problems encountered by the
Jones campaign if they use the technologies available today that better
ensure quality of e-mail lists and target content to specific recipient
groups.

But the broader point remains. When a political candidate sends a voter
an e-mail, that recipient can choose to delete the message without
opening it, unsubscribe from the list, read it or even reply and engage
the sender. That choice should belong to the voter -- not to anti-spam
advocates whose efforts are better focused on commercial e-mail.
Political candidates should be free to communicate with voters as best
they can, and let voters decide what to do with that information.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike McCurry, former press secretary for President Clinton, is CEO of an
advocacy management and communications software company. Larry Purpuro,
the former Republican National Committee deputy chief of staff, is
founder and president of a political e-marketing firm. This was written
for the Los Angeles Times.

http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork