On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:48:30 EST, Jason Hihn said:
out over the SMTP socket. I don't know what this would break though. IANAL,
but I'd like to think it was binding. I think the problem though would be
who would it be binding to? The remote outgoing network (AOL-TW in the
advent of it coming from an aol server?) or the sender? Either way it's
good, but I like it if the network (AOL) is liable. It'll make them make
sure no spam leaves their domain.
I'm not sure you could possibly make it binding - the only thing that usually
looks at SMTP replies are SMTP client software. So unless you create an RFC
describing the format so it can be *parsed* by software, it's the ones-and-zeros
equivalent of urinating into the wind.
Backward compatibility becomes an issue - what happens if the sender's SMTP
doesn't have support for the extension and the parsing it involves?
And given that the spam probably came in through an open proxy server, it's
basically a lost cause - if the proxy site couldn't afford to hire a sysadmin
with enough clue to close the proxy, they're probably effectively judgment
proof.
Kinda like suing somebody for $3M when they live in a tar paper shack and can't
afford a telephone or running water.
I suppose if you made it like a click-through EULA, it would be OK.. except
for the minor detail that almost all our outbound mail is gatewayed through
a machine that won't be able to click.... ;)
pgpXlB0LDQal4.pgp
Description: PGP signature