It's not political, but the International Business Times has an interesting story about the rise of "spear phishing": personalized spam.

A new study by Cisco Systems Inc. found an alarming increase in the amount of personalized spam, which online identity thieves create using stolen lists of e-mail addresses or other poached data about their victims, such as where they went to school or which bank they use.

Unlike traditional spam, most of which is blocked by e-mail filters, personalized spam, known as "spear phishing" messages, often sail through unmolested. They're sent in smaller chunks, and often come from accounts the criminals have set up at reputable Web-based e-mail services. Some of the messages are expertly crafted, linking to beautifully designed Web sites that are bogus or immediately install malicious programs.

I suppose this will mark me as a naif, but I had never thought of this particular bit of criminality.  On hearing of it, though, it strikes me as obvious--and bound to grow.  According to the article, personalized spam only represents four-tenths of a percent of all spam, but if it's much more effective and less likely to be caught by a spam filter, then smart criminals should quickly add it to their arsenals.  And as immense databases full of personally-identifying information proliferate ever-wider, there will be more targets.  We live in interesting times.

Patrick Ruffini, a GOP web politics strategist (and no, unlike CNN, I'm not abusing the term "strategist"), has a very interesting annoucement from the firm he runs, Engage Communications.  They will no longer be selling email lists.  Writes Ruffini:

But beyond a simple desire to abide by the highest ethical standards, the fact is that political spam just doesn’t work. Open rates on voter e-mail lists typically fall in the 3-7% range, well below the 25-40% you might see for an organically built list.

In a way, it's a tragedy of the commons.  Email is so easy and so cheap that it's been overrun by spammers.  Which has rendered it almost worthless as a tool, except for people who opt-in (which means that it's actually harder to reach people through non-spam email than it is via phone or mail, which are ostensibly more costly).

This is the real value of those gigantic rallies that the Obama campaign holds.  In order to enter, people are generally asked for an email address--this builds and refines a list of people who they know are interested in the campaign.  The value of a quality list like this, compared to a purchased list like those Ruffini is forswearing, is immense.  

Email is one of the toughest media to get right.  Building a list organically is best; if you can't do that, try to borrow one that was built organically from another campaign that's endorsing you.  Buying email addresses is, as Ruffini smartly realizes, the worst option.