----- Original Message -----
From: "Len Sassaman" <rabbi(_at_)abditum(_dot_)com>
To: "Hector Santos" <winserver(_dot_)support(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com>
How about this. What if I provided an email addresses such as called:
for-spammers-only(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com
bulletinboard(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com
Does this idea have any merit?
I don't quite get what it is you are proposing.
An avenue for spammers to automatically signup or a built a trust
relationship.
Are the posters able to restrict knowledge of their identity to only
themselves, or not?
No. They can not post mail without accountablity or tracability or some
kind.
We don't agree. We need to control the abuse. You might not be
malicious,
but by far, the industry problem is based on malicious abuse. There is
no
dispute there. I think we can design something that will satisfy all.
But
you need to be traceable. It can't be open-ended any more.
I believe that that statement to be false, and based on a flawed premise.
Which is?
What you are suggesting here is a protocol which deals with abuse by
resorting to lawsuits or prosecution. From a technical standpoint, that's
a pretty inadequate protocol.
I don't agree. Incorrect description of that you deem is my premise.
I can not support or endorse any concept of complete 100% untracable
posting. And it does have ramifications that are legal and both technical.
See CAN-SPAM.
A good message protocol will not require "traceability" as a necessary
component for its security. It will handle network abuse gracefully and
through innate protections.
How so? That seems to be a contradiction. To "Handle Abuse" implies there
is some trackable or "access" concept involved.
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.
It's my understanding that CAN-SPAM bans the forging of network headers.
That does not prohibit strong anonymity, and does not affect anonymous
remailers.
If you don't forge your transaction then you are no longer anonymous!
CAN-SPAM clearly says that TRACABILITY IS A MUST! It is the only way it can
be enforced. And that includes direct and indirect senders. Please read
it thoroughly. It is quite clear.
Anyway. This is EXACTLY why we need to get this straight. You are
advocating the concept that I must accept your entire message first to
decide if its acceptable or not. No consideration for who is delivering the
message or protocol level controls. Sounds familar?
Sorry, both concepts are unacceptable by me for any new design. If you want
to have a primitive protocol with one command "DATA" or break it into two,
HEAD and BODY commands, great! Propose it! I have less of a problem with
that. But that HEAD must all the TRUSTED relationship and network tracing
concepts we must deal with.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com