"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
can do. People are sick of SPAM and they need a solution.
I already spoke on the reasons why believe this information needs to
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
software or the MTA is the portion before the double quote, the
after the doulble quote are for ''non-machine viewing''.
After GL RR identifier you have the two char country code followed by
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
this idea aside, having this information would allow people to
email software they are using to block emails from a country they do
wish to receive email from as well as being able to trace where the
In addtion, just as there is no rule forcing an ISP to use this RR,
software could be set to block email from an address that do not
information in the same way the ISPs block email that is comming from
record that do not have a PTR record now.
IN NS ns.akc.net.
uspring IN A 220.127.116.11
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
----- 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
one I just proposed.