ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2003-04-23 07:38:44
From: Andrzej Filip <anfi(_at_)Box43(_dot_)pl>

..
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

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

Why not?  Why would the public care?

Besides, whether your SMTP server says "550 5.1.1 asdf... User unknown"
after the "\r\n.\r\n" after the DATA command or after "Rcpt To: asdf"
and regardless of whether your SMTP server records messages bodies,
everyone with standing to ask already knows who is faking sender
addresses in your domain.  Those who have standing to ask the question
are those who have received bounces containing transcripts of the
session from the SMTP client.

There are conflicting demands here.  Worse, both sets of demands are
dubious solutions to issues that are not significant problems in the
Internet and not currently in the charter for this mailing list.  On
one hand, there are demands that bounces be suppressed or contain less
information lest spammers use them.  Some of these demands are based
on the theory that someday there might be a significant amount of spam
using bounces.  On the other hand, there are demands that bounces or
at least logs include more information in support of some sort of
legal theory.


Vernon Schryver    vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



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