Tom,
it would help, for example, to see some sort of analysis that shows that
spoofed spam is somehow more dangerous than non-spoofed spam.
TT> Illegal spam which is unspoofed and is reported to LEA leads to one less
TT> spammer being able to continue his work.
As was noted in the FTC Anti-Spam workshop, last week, things are not
nearly that straightforward. 1) resources for legal enforcement are
very, very tight, and 2) the legal blinds that protect spammers can be
impressively strong. One case of needing 18 pre-trial subpoenas was
cited.
TT> And please don't retreat to the boring old argument that the world is a big
TT> place with many jurisdictions and they just wont cooperate on this, because
TT> its demonstrably untrue.
That's not what the folks at the FTC event said.
But they probably don't know as much about international enforcement
as you.
The problem with this sort of topic is that examples of enforcement working
well are not the question. The question is how likely it is that the
spammers will exploit the circumstances in which enforcement does NOT work well.
Remember that spammers are adaptable. They will exploit whatever
works.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg