From: Jim Youll <jim(_at_)media(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>
Can you state concisely in two sentences the purpose of this
particular thread? This appears to be going nowhere and in any case I
cannot see the relevance to the greater discussion.
The common claims about header forgery are used to support claims
about the practicality of various sorts of evidence of consent.
For example, the claims of very common header forgery have been used
to support the demonstratably false claim that whitelisting cannot be
used to help determine consent to receive mail at the target's MUA or
MTAs. Talk of header forgery has also been used to support claims of
the necessity of using encryption to prove consent.
Another evil of the false claims of forgery is that they are used to
support the claim that are no significant legal risks to header forgery,
and that implies things about technical spam defenses.
If you admit that sending from one ISP with return addresses pointing
to another is legitimate, then many anti-spam mechanisms are wrong,
others are more difficult, and still other become more interesting.
This may be one
instance where content filters will be useful.
Certainly.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg