Contradictory requirements can be met by the same system as long as
there are options. In particular, having no return address on an
envelope is not the same as using a bogus (fictitious or spoofed) return
address. I'm simply stating a requirement for sender authentication
(transport and envelope) to be optional.
I would also agree that stronger traceability and authentication are
critical design goals.
But you need to be traceable. It can't be open-ended any more.
Besides, regardless of your opinion about it, the US Federal Law called
CAN-SPAM now says it has to be traceable and IMO, I think it will be
model
or basis for other nations to follow. The process has already begun.
...and we should all tattoo our social security numbers to our
foreheads.
Traceability is important for the 'quality of service' of a message.
Both anonymity and user traceability can be supported by a system that
preserves and indicates in a trusted manner the attributes of the
delivery process. Users that wish to have only authenticated and
traceable mail should be able to trust the delivery notification and
reject anything that's not appropriately traceable. Less strict
services should be able to receive untraceable mail. Users of
authenticated mail should be able to trust the transport system to
guarantee the quality of delivery they request. If it's an
authenticated service, no one else should be able to misuse their
identity. If it is an anonymous service, there should be trust in the
delivery process to not maintain in appropriate audit trails.
Paul