ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Spam Control Complexity -- scaling, adoption, diversit y and scenarios [evidence for legal actions]

2003-04-23 00:59:19
At Apr 2003 23:12:49 -0400 Kee Hinckley wrote:

At 9:57 PM +0200 4/22/03, Andrzej Filip wrote:

e.g. making MTAs record bounces to non existing local addresses may help in legal actions against "sender faking" spammers.

It would require MTA to reject messages from <> to non existing local recipient in reply to "final dot" instead of reply to RCPT TO: => bounce but keep for possible legal action

Legally require people to keep a copy of bounces to non-existent addresses?

I merely suggested making it "technically possible" and recomended, you suggest the logical next step - making it legally required for (some?) companies/ISPs.
[I will try to use more precise wording next time]

Sigh.  Time to buy another disk I guess.

Tapes may be more suitable for the task.
How many messages from <> to non existing local users YOUR site bounces per day ?

Of course there's the minor problem that that means I have to collect the message instead of bounce it at RCPT time.

Replace "have to" by "can" to get what I wanted to suggest.

Who's going to pay for the upgrade to my bandwidth?

You. Have you expected another answer ?

Are you ready to tell in public that you do not give a dam about who fakes sender addresses in your email domain ?

--
Andrzej [pl>en: Andrew] Adam Filip http://www.polbox.com/a/anfi/



_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>