[Top] [All Lists]

Re: making mail traceable

2004-01-17 15:09:12

To this point I would say, we need to know the physical location of the
machine (node) on the Internet sending the email.

I would say that  DNS is the perfect location for storing this information,
since unlike mail headers it is more difficult to mung around with by the
casual user and usually administrated properly by ISPs.

With the information stored in the DNS IMO, it gives us a second level of
repudiation to protect us all from spammers and help the US inforce the new


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James M Galvin" <galvin+ietf-822(_at_)elistx(_dot_)com>
To: "Al Costanzo" <al(_at_)akc(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: making mail traceable

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
    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
    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
    >     >
    >     >     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
    >     add it to Received or create a new header.
    > Absolutely.
    > And let us not forget some means to validate that the information we
    > have or get is accurate and correct.  Or is that what Nathaniel and
    > Keith meant by "traceable?"
    > Jim