[Top] [All Lists]

Re: making mail traceable

2004-01-19 09:17:36

"over my dead body".


On Jan 19, 2004, at 11:05 AM, Al Costanzo wrote:


I think making mail traceable is the very best thing that the working group
can do.  People are sick of SPAM and they need a solution.

I already spoke on the reasons why believe this information needs to be in
DNS in a previous post but I did not go into the detals as to what this
could do to help the situation.

In the example below, the infomation that would be used by Client's mail software or the MTA is the portion before the double quote, the information
after the doulble quote are for ''non-machine viewing''.

After GL RR identifier you have the two char country code followed by the
postal code.

GL US.45420.1910

We now have states that have enacted laws concerning spam and now the
federal government as well. But even if you put this as a reason to use this idea aside, having this information would allow people to configure email software they are using to block emails from a country they do not wish to receive email from as well as being able to trace where the email
came from.

In addtion, just as there is no rule forcing an ISP to use this RR, mail software could be set to block email from an address that do not contain the information in the same way the ISPs block email that is comming from an A
record that do not have a PTR record now.

                IN      NS

uspring         IN      A
                IN      MX      5       mail
                IN      HINFO   Vax VMS
                IN      GL US.45420.1910 "1425 Arbor Avenue, Dayton OH"
ftp             IN      CNAME   uspring

I will re-post the draft shortly

Al Costanzo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
To: "Graham Klyne" <GK-lists(_at_)ninebynine(_dot_)org>
Cc: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>; "ietf-822" 
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: making mail traceable

But do we really want traceability?  Or to put it another way, do we
really want to put hooks in the mail system that make mass
surveillance (by governments, or perhaps even by large companies or
unscrupulous ISPs) that much easier?

Speaking for myself, I really would like the option to not use
bandwidth receiving email from previously unknown senders unless its
source can be traced.

well I suppose you could say that the reason I'm publicly discussing
these ideas now is that spam has gotten bad enough that extreme
measures seem to be required.

also, earlier versions of this scheme made surveillance easier than the
one I just proposed.