Agreed..the most annoying spam is when they impersonate myself 8-)
-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
On
Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 7:09 PM
To: 'Eric Dean'; 'Alan DeKok'; asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: 3. Requirements - Anonymity (was Re: FW: [Asrg]
0. General)
I agree. RMX would merely allow for me to protect my domain from
getting spoofed. By no means is it an anti-spam method.
RMX and SPF do not prevent all spam but they do have the
potential to eliminate impersonation spam (aka Joe Jobbing).
This type of spam is particularly serious because it has been
used in a series of very successful identity theft schemes.
These include the persistent 'update your ebay/amazon/paypal
account solicitations and recently a series of emails
impersonating several banks.
Impersonation spam creates considerable inconvenience and
cost for the impersonation victim. In addition to the cost of
fielding complaints about the spam the victim's reputation is
damaged. In many cases the impersonator may steal business
from the victim (anti-virus software spam, domain name
registration spam). It is not unusual for a spam to be
correct in every detail except for the telephone number to
contact to give payment.
Certainly it is possible and useful to go further than IP
address/Domain Name verification of the type supported in
RMX/SPF. But this does invalidate RMX/SPF infrastructure as a
first step. Nor is it tenable to claim that RMX/SPF are
insufficient and then claim that certificate based schemes
are unnecessary.
Phill
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg