From: "Eric D. Williams" <eric(_at_)infobro(_dot_)com>
We do not agree that abusing an address amounts to forgery. In my
view that makes as little sense as saying that if you abuse a rental
car, you are guilty of auto theft.
The owner of a assigning resources of the zone to a user e.g. a resolvable
e-mail delivery path, is (or should be) responsible for the use of that
'rental'. In your example you are missing the key correlation to the analogy,
the 'spammer' is not being said to abuse the zone resources they are in
practice (in this example) stealing the zone resource (resolution resources
for
the invalid delivery path, DSN creation) of the zone operator/owner.
No, you are falling for the intentional misrepresentation or lie that
is labelling mail that comes from one domain with another domain as
sender as "forgery." That lie is intended to cause you to misunderstand
what is being abused and by whom.
By believing the forgery lie, you accept the notion that sending
from one domain with another's return address abuses the zone resources
and so forth of free providers. If that were true, you could find
words in Hotmail's terms and conditions that prohibit sending mail
with a Hotmail envelope address from other domains.
Of course, sending spam is often a tort against the owner of the domain
name and often a crime just like abuse of a rental car, but that does
not make it "forgery." Using a mailbox address as the domain owner
allows is not an abuse of it when that use is part of a crime. Sending
spam is the crime, not sending mail from with domain with another's
return address.
The free providers lie about the situation to evade their complicity
in spam. Other people do it rationalize simplistic and ineffective
defenses against spam and to make it easier to fight spammers.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg