From: Kee Hinckley <nazgul(_at_)somewhere(_dot_)com>
We don't need any changes for "source identification." The source
that matters is the organization whose name, products, or services
are advertised by spam.
So would you propose a law requiring that companies include that
information in the email?
*** OF COURSE NOT! ***
Why can't I communicate the simple, obvious fact that advertising
almost always identifies the advertiser?
Spam identifies its perpetrator to its targets so that they can buy
whatever is being advertised. That identification is also sufficent
in court for people with a complaint agatinst the spammer.
This is not a crackpot theory. Title 47, Section 221 of the U.S. Code
commonly known as the Telephone Communications Protection Act or TCPA
is frequently used against advertisers that are technically more
anonymous that any spammer. Any spam received through an SMTP server
that is not utterly broken and lame has a Received header that accurately
identifies the IP address of a computer owned by at least one party
that is at least partly responsible for the spam. Many and probably
most junk faxes are not tagged with the true telephone number of the
send fax machine (if it has one, which it need not), with accurate
caller-ID information (since most fax machines don't record caller-ID),
or even the sender's identification required by the TCPA. Despite
that lack of technical pointers to the junk faxer, the TCPA is regularly
used to whack them with fines ranging from $500 to millions of dollars.
For examples, see http://www.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/ufax.html
The only identification of the perps is obtained from the advertising
copy in the junk faxes and subpoenas served on them. It is uusually
too much work and not worthwhile to involve the telcos in TCPA actions.
Thus, there is no non-technical need for any more identification of
spammers than we already have. The only sane and honest justification
for more identification of spammers is better automated filtering of
spam....well, there are other honest but unstated and generally hidden
or denied justifications such as selling software, PKI certs, or
anti-spam snake oil.
Note that I've applied this theory in the legal system against a sender
of junk faxes. Note also that I could go on at length about the
limitations of the TCPA and why I think it has not entirely ended the
junk fax problem, but won't unless prodded beyond endurance.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg