[Top] [All Lists]

Re: making mail traceable

2004-01-17 13:55:47

To the extent it is "information" we agree we need for email to be
traceable and we agree that having it in the DNS is the right place for
it, then it would be helpful.  Dave's point was that we should be
discussing what information we need and agree on that before we try to
agree on where to put it.


On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Al Costanzo wrote:

    Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:42:09 -0500
    From: Al Costanzo <al(_at_)akc(_dot_)com>
    To: James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-822(_at_)eListX(_dot_)com>, 
    Subject: Re: making mail traceable

    I may be missing the point here but about a year ago I wrote a draft for a
    DNS RR record to keep track of the physical location of the A or MX record
    as a "physical postal address" just for this purpose, with the intention of
    being able to track back the location of SPAM.

    With new state laws I thought it was the way to go,  and then use MTA use
    this information.

    Would this not help?  If so I have a copy of the draft I am currently

    Al Costanzo
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "James M Galvin" <galvin+ietf-822(_at_)elistx(_dot_)com>
    To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
    Cc: "ietf-822" <ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
    Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 5:02 PM
    Subject: Re: making mail traceable

    > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Dave Crocker wrote:
    >     >     >  The "Received" header is woefully inadequate for spam tracing
    >     >
    >     >     True.  Then again, so is the rest of the message format and mail
    >     >     transport.
    >     >
    >     > I don't agree it's "woefully inadequate."
    >     When we have some agreement on the information that is needed to
    >     facilitate spam tracing, then we can decide whether it is better to
    >     add it to Received or create a new header.
    > Absolutely.
    > And let us not forget some means to validate that the information we do
    > have or get is accurate and correct.  Or is that what Nathaniel and
    > Keith meant by "traceable?"
    > Jim