--On 8 July 2009 10:21:44 -0400 der Mouse <mouse(_at_)Rodents-Montreal(_dot_)ORG>
wrote:
Accountability is not, per se, an antispam solution. Accountability
+ some e.g. banning enforcement mechanism can be.
It's not really accountability unless there's an enforcement mechanism,
some kind of calling to account. (Calling identifiability
"accountability" does not make it that.)
True, but we have a variety of sanctions that we can take against spammers,
if only we could identify them. Different sanctions require different types
of identification, and different levels of confidence in the identification.
Knowing the real email address responsible lets us:
1. Contact the owner of a compromised account, and advise them to take
action.
2. Contact the account service provider.
3. Blacklist the address.
4. Bounce unwanted email back to the sender.
These are all things that we currently can't do for the majority of email.
Knowing for sure the owner of the email address responsible gives us access
to legal sanctions from small claims courts to imprisonment. Such sanctions
are available, and have been used in a variety of jurisdictions. Widespread
spoofing probably means its harder to access these sanctions.
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg