Google Moves To Keep Campaign Messages Out of Spam (axios.com) 138
Google has asked the Federal Election Commission to green light a program that could keep campaign emails from ending up in spam folders, according to a filing obtained by Axios. From a report: Google has come under fire that its algorithms unfairly target conservative content across its services, and that its Gmail service filters more Republican fundraising and campaign emails to spam. Republican leadership introduced a bill this month that would require platforms to share how their filtering techniques work and make it illegal to put campaign emails into spam unless a user asks. Google's pilot program, per the June 21 filing, would be for "authorized candidate committees, political party committees and leadership political action committees registered with the FEC." It would make campaign emails from such groups exempt from spam detection as long as they don't violate Gmail's policies around phishing, malware or illegal content. Instead, when users would receive an email from a campaign for the first time, they would get a âoeprominentâ notification asking if they want to keep receiving them, and would still have the ability to opt out of subsequent emails.
Ask the recipient. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask the recipient if they think it's spam. Don't make decisions either way.
If a campaign message falls in the spam filter then it's probably a bad message anyway.
Gmail isn't good about asking (Score:4, Interesting)
I get messages from both parties, they're *all* spam but only the DNC ones made it to my gmail inbox. I have no idea how I got on any of their lists.
I wrote custom filters to send them to trash.
I didn't see any obvious difference in the email headers, e.g. it doesn't look like it's a DKIM thing.
I have other emails that I've specifically exempted from spam that they keep trying to send there, too, though. These were charity emails that I actually want. Go figure.
Re: (Score:3)
I have other emails that I've specifically exempted from spam that they keep trying to send there, too, though. These were charity emails that I actually want. Go figure.
In this case I'd guess it's a misconfigured combination of MX, SPF, DKIM and/or DMARC settings, or sometimes bad formatting (white text on white background, plain text contents distinct from HTML-formatted content, tiny font sizes etc., all of which are typical spam behavior). I've had opportunity to contact charities and businesses about their emails landing in the Spam folder no matter what, and it invariably involved some of these being incorrectly configured in the way typical spam is incorrect. Alas, m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
unsophisticated spoof of their own domain
Yep. So far this hasn't really impacted those who should care because it's invisible. They know their e-mails are ending up on spam folders, but at best they think this is just e-mail providers being mean and uncooperative. Since the stick to beat spam isn't working well for these clueless cases, Google and other major e-mail providers are trying to carrot things so even the less knowledgeable will want to have it working right in the form of the BIMI [bimigroup.org] standard, which is basically having their logos prominen
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
I don't want any side being given unfair or preferential treatment.
I also don't want to receive campaign emails (or snail mail or door knocks or phone calls or text messages or communications of any kind) from campaigners regardless of political affiliation. Let the users control their preferences and be done with it.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't want any side being given unfair or preferential treatment.
Remind me again which party just took a giant dump on 50 years of established legal precedent? Which party said businesses have a first amendment right, unless that business happens to publicity criticize a homophobic law?
Fair and balanced is fine so long as both sides play fair. When one side insists on playing Calvinball, they deserve to be put into time-out.
Re: (Score:2)
You write that no-one fears homosexuals but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who fear homosexuality.
They fear they may see it in themselves, their family and will lose face over it (because they have ridiculed and belittled others for it and they are scared of ridicule). They fear the idea that people may not play by the rules they feel they have had to abide by so they enforce them even more rigidly.
I see it as a fear of freedom in general
Re: (Score:1)
Now, legit campaign newsletters being sent in bulk to people who have signed up for them, that's different. They should have their precedence set to bulk (by the sender, preferably), but they're not spam because they're not unsolicited. That's like when your pharmacy's automated system sends you an SMS alert to let you know your pre
Re:Ask the recipient. (Score:4, Insightful)
'Ask the recipient' basically implies 'give the spammer at least one successful delivery; regardless of how much feedback you have from other sources and other user responses that it's probably garbage.
Demanding a carve-out for "authorized candidate committees, political party committees and leadership political action committees registered with the FEC" also seems like it's just begging to have every alleged-nonprofit banging down the door and demanding the same right to send mail so spammy a machine dislikes it just because they are registered Good Guys(just look how well a political exemption worked for the Do Not Call list...)
Perhaps this is just the bitter mailserver admin in me; but I also suspect that there would be a lot of random fly-by-night PACs that have filled out FEC paperwork; but haven't bothered to do even rudimentary SPF/DMARC/etc. config for whatever 3rd party consultancy their nephew is being paid to operate as a way of skimming money off who will then whine like babies when email from spamlutions.biz with forged origin addresses gets blocked because Google should have somehow intuited that that email was their FEC-blessed email, despite patrioticfundraising.scam not listing spamlutions.biz in their SPF records.
All that said, I'm 100% in favor of email providers letting their customers see every last scrap that comes in for themselves if they want to, and do their own sorting and evaluation if they wish; but forbidding default settings where a lot of spam gets scrubbed without direct user intervention would essentially be handing email to spammers by force of law.
Same problem with press releases (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ask the recipient. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's all spam. All of it.
Anybody who wants campaign messages can sign up for them. Emails you sign up for don't generally land in your spam folder, even if they are commercial or political in nature. We don't need any new spam settings to give special status to political spam.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that's the problem, Google most definitely has mechanisms that will filter emails that were marked as spam by other people. This is one of the main ways that they identify a piece of email is potentially spam. The issue is likely that there is a significant number of people who may have marked emails they signed up for as spam instead of unsubscribing. I know personally that I am hesitant to click on an unsubscribe link, it seems like the perfect opportunity to do something nefarious to someone o
Re: (Score:2)
Most people know if they have subscribed to something.
If you get a spam mail with an "unsubscribe" link, it is still spam.
Re: Ask the recipient. (Score:2)
Maybe more people find Republican campaign messages to be spam than Democratic ones. Perhaps they should be more careful who they spam or write their messages in a way that doesnâ(TM)t make so many people think theyâ(TM)re spam.
Nab, itâ(TM)s part of their agenda to make a fuss about perceived bias in tech giants. Itâ(TM)s also easier to legislate and make it look to their supporters that theyâ(TM)re doing something proactive. Damned politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a problem here which is that people often don't see why they should get involved in politics. In order for them to understand that you have to tell them about real issues that will affect them. The general agreement in most democratic countries is that, instead of the government doing that, which would likely mention the issues most beneficial to them, the different political parties should do that themselves.
Since this is a social thing it has to get some form of priority over the general commercia
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Ask the recipient. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a classic fallacy. "Other people should care about the things I think are important."
Who am I to tell my neighbor that politics should be important to them? If they don't care about politics, that's their business. If that causes them harm, that's also their problem.
Just because you think people should care about politics, doesn't mean it's so. And for those who don't care about politics, forcing spam emails on them certainly isn't going to change their mind about that!
Re: Ask the recipient. (Score:2)
Who cares if my neighbor's house is on fire? That's THEIR house, fuck them!
Hey, did you know that fire spreads? Weird huh?
Put clearly...
I would love to ignore politics, TRUST ME. Strangely we have these people very intent on shredding what's left of our "Democracy" for their own cultish benefit. If you'd like to be left out, there's that option!
Go to another country where participation isn't *expected* and the government isn't predicated on massive boring to make the people's will known.
No, I don't like thi
Re: Ask the recipient. (Score:2)
...massive VOTING.
Don't post on your phone kids!
Re: (Score:2)
Do you drink alcohol? Do you smoke? Do you eat fast food? You know these things are detrimental to your health, right? They shorten your lifespan. I personally think these vices are important to avoid. But who am I to tell YOU what your priorities should be?
Do you exercise regularly? Do you avoid running up credit card bills? Do you save enough in your 401(k) to retire decently? These are important things! But if you choose to ignore good habits, the consequences are yours.
Politics are no different. Yes, we
Re: (Score:2)
What alternative do you propose that would get people who are otherwise passive to become involved and active in voting?
The first things that come to my mind are to eliminate lobbying, make sure congresscritters are sent to jail for insider trading, eliminate the revolving door between public office and corporations, and probably a zillion other things that would make votes count for something other than a (usually) inconsequential regime change.
I see voter apathy as the symptom, not the problem. The real problem is that in the long run most elections alter nothing of substance. So long as "meet the new boss, same as the old
Re: Ask the recipient. (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that ensuring a campaign message lands in somebodyâ(TM)s inbox that it will promote engagement? Personally Iâ(TM)d just get annoyed and delete the spam faster. Itâ(TM)s like trying to claim that Aussieâ(TM)s make voting choices because theyâ(TM)re forced to vote in elections and are fined if they donâ(TM)t.
Re: (Score:1)
Politicians are already a profession. The term "career politician" has been around a very long time already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mailing lists that are not double opt-in, and those that don't honor opt-out, deserve their messages to be sent straight to spam. It's that simple.
spam Mafia (Score:2)
Emails you sign up for don't generally land in your spam folder,
That is not correct.
1. Try running a small business on a website, having people willingly subscribe to your emails.
2. Implement your own email sending service, or use free or cheap accounts of services like Sendgrid.
3. Users don't see your emails because they land in spam folders of Gmail, Outlook, Amazon SMS, and a few other big players.
4. ???
5. Lack of profit!!!
Re: (Score:2)
You get what you pay for! *Cheap* is usually not *effective.*
GMail is very, very good at distinguishing between spam and legitimate marketing, as far as I can tell from my own inbox. It rarely gets it wrong. I know it's not perfect, but 99.9% of the time it gets it right.
Re: spam Mafia (Score:2)
You don't understand your own point. If Gmail were good, they would recognise legitimate but cheap usages of email sending. Currently they need to be bribed.
If you want to bypass this email mafia, use "free" services of Microsoft or Google. Amazon, AFAIK doesn't offer free email services.
Re: (Score:2)
My suggestion is that "cheap" email senders are cheap because they cater to spammers, and are therefore legitimate targets for GMail's spam filters. It's not because GMail's filters aren't working well enough, it's because they are working exactly as intended.
Re: (Score:2)
A bit more about how "cheap" email services cater to spammers.
The "expensive" (quality) email senders perform significant anti-spam actions.
For example, Constant Contact implements a sophisticated authentication framework to help you identify yourself as not being a spammer. https://knowledgebase.constant... [constantcontact.com]
They manage unsubscribes in such a way that you the sender can't override. https://knowledgebase.constant... [constantcontact.com]
Many email systems automatically send a "soft fail" for email senders they don't recognize. Thi
Re: spam Mafia (Score:2)
So in your own opinion too, Google's spam production is not working well, it is the paid email services' spam protection that is working well. You haven't understood your opinion, that's all.
The definition of good spam protection (as e.g. Google might provide) must be given here. Although it should not be controversial, you're unable to understand your own point, so it is pertinent to clarify that :
1. Unsolicited unwelcome email always blocked.
2. Solicited email never blocked
3. If solicited email turns unwe
Re: (Score:2)
Your definition is nice in theory, but doesn't conform to how the world works. A physical example might help.
If you want to buy a brand-name watch, you can save money by buying it from a guy standing on a street corner. But you'll be hard-pressed to tell if the watch is genuine or not, or whether it was stolen. Maybe they have some legitimate goods to sell, but you would be wise to avoid such a street vendor, because the risk is too great.
Your cheap email service is the guy on the street corner. Maybe they
Re: spam Mafia (Score:2)
Ok, so you defined Google's spam protection as "good" and are now asserting that Google's spam protection is good.
Not going with my "3 rules" would have been fine if you had any objective definition of "good".
Fuck that Noise (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't about spam. It's about right-wing lawmakers thinking they are entitled to an audience
I get campaign email from both Republican and Democratic sources.
They are all the same. Literally they use the same kinds of words and scare tactics. There's really no difference in volume between them.
This is about Democrats AND Republicans forcing us to endure the vomit of fear they have to offer.
Well no thank you, all campaign emails are and shall forever be spam, as far as I am concerned. You might prefer one flavor of vomit but I'll filter it all out thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Some with Robocalls (Score:2)
Scoundrels, the lot of them:
"Placing one's number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop some, but not all, unsolicited calls. The following are exceptions granted by existing laws and regulationsâ"and these types of organizations can register with donotcall.gov and can purchase telephone lists from the Do Not Call Registry:
A person may still receive calls from political organizations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
so brave, so anti-establishment, truly a superior logical thinking mind.
Well to yours, yes. Correct. Recognizing your place is a good first step to recovery.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also curious where you're getting your perfect Oracle that can distinguish between them for you. Have the Bayesian filters become that good now?
Re: (Score:2)
Now you are right that maybe "WHAT LIZ CHENEY STANDS FOR TRUTH, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND THE CONSTITUTION Liz is committed to figh
Re: (Score:1)
As an aside, no one likes Liz Cheney. She's from the same political gutter as all the other political fools.
Re:Ask the recipient. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, you seriously believe one political party is better than the other.
It is however true - though you'd be more correct in saying "one political party isn't quite as bad as the other". While which party is worse changes over generations, lately (for the last couple of decades at least) the Republican party is IMO visibly worse. Saying "they're all the same" is incorrect and harmful - it only helps the worst of all, because it discourages people from penalizing their misdeeds.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't provide a cogent argument for how realizing that political parties don't h
Re: Ask the recipient. (Score:2)
You've been rooked, friend.
But hey, why have a conversation about facts when we can just muddy the conversation until it's useless in the name of "fairness"?
This side, that side... Here's how this works...
Follow. The. Fucking. Money.
It flows heavily to ALL SIDES, so maybe we should address THAT first. Adding a hefty dose of holding these assholes ACTUALLY responsible would be a great start as well. Sadly, we're all bombarded with whatever the latest idiocy that has come down the newswire, so nobody can have
Re: (Score:2)
To keep making it about parties is to abdicate your responsibilities as a citizen. That's why I said that each person needs to focus on their representatives. It doesn't matter what party your representative is, they are supposed to represent you.
Really, I don't know how you can say this with a straight face when everyone can see how closely all Republicans toe the party line - to the point that when one or two of them dare vote otherwise (like John McCain did during the ACA debates, or Mitt Romney during the Trump impeachment voting) it's a major political and media event.
To think that your representative represents you is astonishingly naive. This idea has gone away almost since the founding of the USA. Indeed, if that were the case, there would b
Re: (Score:2)
While what you say is rational; however, saying that one party is "better" than the other is a distraction. The entire two party system is completely corrupted and used as a weapon by groups of people and it has REALLY fucked America up.
The individual has been marginalized and almost entirely forgotten. Half of the people I know can not afford rent or food but can afford multiple large screen displays, mobile phones, etc. Think about it, useless consumer items are cheaper than a month of food. Why would tha
Re: (Score:2)
In reality both political parties will take full advantage of the "Political Campaign" loophole for forced TV Advertisements, Ignoring No-Call Telecom laws, and a slew of other methods of marking that we normally would consider illegal, to be perfectly legal for Political Campaigning.
While the fate of the US should be based on an informed electorate, Political Campaign laws are all about officiating and allowing for lies, misinformation and hyperbolic content to be spewed at an ever increasing rate. We are
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ask the recipient. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, you got it half right.
This is about Google ensuring that they are legally allowed to flag certain political campaigns and the individuals they don't want to see win as spam while ensuring the glistening white(listed) road is paved smooth for their "approved" messengers.
It doesn't take away user choice. Users can still shitcan whatever messages they want, to include ALL messages from anyone they don't want to see. This is about capitalizing on the default setting, which is worth trillions in the era of users too lazy to change it.
After the last election and social media fuckery, I can't believe you cannot see this. No social media company wants to be accused of manipulation this time around. So they'll just make it all legal-like as a "defense".
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want to see political adds: yes, some, no. If the user selects "some," let them pick which categories and what importance similar to how facebook follows work. I.e. Do you want to see political advertisements that falsely claim the 2020 election was stolen: no, yes, show first. If the user picks the last choice, the emails can get a star and show up under the "important" section.
Individual users marking things as spam still delivers spam. The cu
One man's spam is the liar's ham? (Score:2)
Seems to be the current end of the FP thread. If thread-moderation were an option, I doubt I'd mod it up.
But as regards your comment, they would just lie about the content. Like push-polls that pretend to be polls. If they think they can reach more suckers by claiming it's political email, then that's what they'll do. But actually it's much worse than that. They have all of the suckers filed in small shoe boxes now and they will pick and choose shoehorns appropriately.
Two fundamental aspects I'd focus my an
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They had a religion.
Don't Be Evil.
It wasn't profitable enough.
Re: Ask the recipient. (Score:3)
I'm subscribed to at least 8 different mailing lists from at least 8 different political offices in I believe 6 different states, none of which are mine, and not counting the ones I've already blocked. All democratic politicians. And I live in a red state. I signed up for none of them. I've tried, and tried, and tried to unsubscribe from all of them, but the majority of the time if they even have an unsubscribe link, it doesn't even fucking work. Sure, I can block them, but each time one of them leaves offi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm subscribed to at least 8 different mailing lists from at least 8 different political offices in I believe 6 different states, none of which are mine, and not counting the ones I've already blocked. All democratic politicians. And I live in a red state
Ironically, I live in a purple state and I get all Republican spams from politicians in OK, WA, and OR.
Re: (Score:3)
If google was also throwing democrat campaign emails into Spam at a similar rate, then they would have avoided the situation altogether. Google wouldn't have given right-wingers a valid argument to stand on.
Google doesn't know if you signed up for an email or not on some random mailing list. They aren't using standard spam scores to filter out these emails; they're using custom logic and filters. What you said is ideal but impractical. They'd essentially have to throw everything to spam by default unless th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah, when I referred to "customer logic and filters" that's what I was talking about. Republicans are asking for the rules around spam flagging to be published so that they can either point out bias, or get their emails into compliance. It's only gmail that is blocking their emails, and there is no way to know how to keep them out of spam on google's platform. All they know is that democratic emails asking for money are being flagged 50% less of the time. So yeah we already know the solution. Change t
Why (Score:2)
No, let's not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: No, let's not. (Score:2)
I suggest keeping an air horn close by and blowing it in the phone when you receive an unsolicited phone call, hopefully the fuckers will go deaf.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen their campaign emails? (Score:1)
Oh God No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google, MORE political spam filtering please, not less.
Re: (Score:2)
Email was only ever designed for personal messaging. Anything other than a directly whitelisted email address is spam.
Super PAC flood (Score:2)
Get ready for a flood of crap gmail that you cannot easily block. Running your own email and filtering for the win.
label it as spam? (Score:2)
who cares send it straight to the trash either way.
Make it opt-in (Score:2)
It's not like any of these groups bother to filter their lists. They don't care if they email thousands of foreigners, people from outside their constituency, etc. I received at least two emails from campaigns in NY during the primary cycle, I haven't lived there in more than 10 years. My email address also wasn't associated with my voter registration there (wasn't collected at the time) and I'm not registered an
Misleading article title (Score:2)
Here I was thinking that spam is already pretty obnoxious, but now the penis pill ads are including political messages too?
Take a pill to enjoy super long erections and vote for...
Yeah, that'd be annoying, but after reading TFS for a bit of clarification, it seems this is about making sure political ads don't get spamfoldered. Ugh. I think I'd rather have the penis pill ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're all about dicks anyway.
The actual problem with politics in America (Score:2)
This isn't really about email or messages. The problem goes much deeper.
As I see it, the political situation here has been reduced to "Team Red" versus "Team Blue" because both sides have done so much gerrymandering and rigging the system that it's all but impossible for anyone to get on the ballot without support from one side or the other.
As a result, nobody from either side can be seen to cooperate with the other for fear of alienating their base and being replaced with someone who will toe the Party Li
Fight fire with fire (I do) (Score:3)
I hate politics with all my passion. Whenever I receive any political leaflets, emails or other newsletters I see red. Luckily, political parties are public bodies. Every time I receive any political crap myself, I go and find out who's in charge of the sender organisation. Then, I start forwarding any unwanted correspondence to the top-most member of the organisation with a "PLEASE STOP" message (although the actual message is different and more brutal). Most places stop after a few weeks and/or iterations.
We need something like the UK system (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: We need something like the UK system (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Misleading headline (Score:3)
Actual headline:"Google's spamfilter is broken"
Just for reference: (Score:2)
The registration forms do presume some amount of organization exists in order to be registering; but things like treasurers and designated agents are roles that can fairly easily be filled by a small number of people for a large number of nominally independent organizations, especially when the whole point is for the organization to largely
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct in that it's free.
The registration also comes with a whole bunch of rules about where the money comes from and what you can do with it. If you didn't raise much money, you could probably fly under the wire, but you do have to report ALL the income and there are a whole slew of reporters and political organizations taking apart everything in that FEC database.
The FEC should regulate the spam (Score:1)
The FEC should regulate the spam by making the sender include a mandatory disclaimer. Then we could craft a rule to auto forward the message to our representative, then delete it.
It's spam (Score:2)
Republican leadership introduced a bill this month that would require platforms to share how their filtering techniques work and make it illegal to put campaign emails into spam unless a user asks.
I hope the law includes a sub-clause that the subject line MUST contain the words "republican electoral campaign" so I can easily filter it.
I'm not holding my breath though.
Eh.... I think it's a fair request. (Score:2)
Doesn't really matter how much or little I might hate political campaign advertising. The fact is, you can't really have a Democratic Republic without letting the parties on the ballot have opportunities to reach out to the public and try to win their votes.
If a decision is made that email is simply an inappropriate vehicle for campaigning? Then it could be outlawed completely. Otherwise, I think services like Google should leave it alone by default, delivering it to the intended recipients in all cases exc
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't trying to win votes. They are trying to raise money. Don't believe me? Have you ever seen one the doesn't have a send money link?
The issues they promote in the e-mails have nothing to do with what they will do or what they believe. They are all about getting your money.
This is really really going to suck (Score:5, Interesting)
All that will happen is *all* spam will start being disguised to look like campaign emails.
If Google was not filtering Democrats only then all spam would be disguised to look like Democrat campaign emails.
Neither of these situations are wanted. That stuff is spam. I can sign up with an organization if I want to see email from them.
Re: (Score:2)
That feature is available for pretty much any kind of phone service. I have it and I suspect it is canning all political messages as well as spam (because I have not gotten any).
You are correct however this would be equivalent to the government saying that campaign calls cannot be hung up on automatically by things like "not in contact list" and they force whoever is programming these systems to allow them through.
Hey Google (Score:2)
Kill All Spam, all flavors of government spam (Score:2)
We don't need any of it. If they really want to help the public, send links to some tutorial on how to use duckduckgo/google/etc. to find out information. And more links that teach people how to get 3+ legit resources to fact check a single topic. Etc.
isn't that pretty much an admission of guilt? (Score:2)
If someone says "let's check if your accounting is clean" and your first response is to write a whole new set of accounting rules, I'm going to do with "guilty for 1000 Chuck."
Not yours to decide (Score:2)
Or put them all in spam (Score:2)
Wow! The US of Awesomenss! (Score:2)
Unbelieveable.
I have to opt out to not receive SPAM from a "political party"?
How retarded is that?
A mail which comes not from a guy I'm acquainted to, or a guy who has a strong reason to assume I would want to communicate with him: is spam I want it in my spam folder.
A clear indication for spam is: if it is mailed to millions of users of the same mail service, it is SPAM That is the base definition of *spam*
Re: (Score:2)
It already legal for them to send it. There is required boilerplate at the end of the e-mail, but as long as that is there, they can send it. Same with telemarketing calls and now telemarketing text messages.
Spam Blocking Idea (Score:2)
I wonder how useful it would be to use the domain in the unsubscribe link to filter spam?
I intentionally mark them as spam. (Score:2)
A few years back, I donated to a politician's campaign. Now I get a shit-ton of emails from random politicians I cannot vote for anyhow, begging for money. As far as I can tell, the emails are written by coked-up 8th graders who just discovered that you can change fonts in text. Though given the grammar and spelling used, maybe 8th graders is giving them the benefit of the doubt. The emails often are addressed to my email address, but with someone else's name, so obviously someone is making money off of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The round file.. (Score:2)