<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir="ltr">
<p></p>
<div>
<div>Leave the private matter of private email handling in the hands of the private participants of the private email system.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">If congress wants to create a government mandate on political campaign emails, the political campaigns themselves ought to be forced to mark their emails as a political campaign emails. This would more easily allow sorting
and filtering of emails by mail providers and by the users and help </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">ensure</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> easier reception or easier
</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">rejection</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> by the users. I can say "yes, I want campaign emails" and I get less or no filtering or I can say "no, I do not want campaign emails" and never have to see them again <joy>.</span><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have contacted my reps and expressed my opinions and some relevant facts on this matter.</div>
</div>
<div></div>
<p></p>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> NANOG <nanog-bounces+jkrejci=usinternet.com@nanog.org> on behalf of Anne Mitchell <amitchell@isipp.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 29, 2022 4:57 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> nanog@nanog.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Sigh, friends don't let politicians write tech laws</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText"><br>
<br>
> On Jul 29, 2022, at 3:37 PM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> It appears that Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> said:<br>
>> -=-=-=-=-=-<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4409/text?r=9&s=1">
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4409/text?r=9&s=1</a><br>
>> <br>
>> the body of the proposed law:<br>
> <br>
> This bill was filed by a bunch of the usual right wing suspects about<br>
> a month ago. It was referred to committee, like all filed bills, and<br>
> I very much doubt it will ever emerge.<br>
<br>
I'm inclined to agree, except that as we've seen Google has already attempted to cave, which means that they (the bills' sponsors) will feel even more emboldened, and can point to Google's "pilot program" as evidence that "even Google admits there is a problem,
so we need the law to make the other big providers do it." <br>
<br>
I believe we can't rely on it being buried without a little help. It costs nothing to send an email to a representative, so..why not provide that help. ;~)<br>
<br>
Anne<br>
<br>
--<br>
Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law<br>
CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy<br>
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)<br>
Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook<br>
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange<br>
Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School<br>
Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School<br>
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop<br>
Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>