----- Original Message -----
From: "Benjamin Franz" <snowhare(_at_)nihongo(_dot_)org>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] OT - Telephone Caller ID
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Kitterman" <spf2(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 2:19 PM
Subject: [spf-discuss] OT - Telephone Caller ID
Or you could just dial *67 in the US (different numbers in different
countries) and turn off caller ID.
There is no privacy need to fake a caller ID number.
Yes, there is. There's an interesting balance for locations that block
unidentified calls, such as lots of corporate and business lines and
people
who are harassed, and people who need to not use their own Caller-ID
information for privacy reasons.
The balance does resemble that between forwarding email messages with
spoofed or unspoofed addresses or re-written "MAIL FROM" lines.
Ah. So you would rather people lie about who they are than comply with a
message recipient's clearly stated desires about whether they wish to
accept messages from people who refuse to identify themselves or who are
provably lying about who they are.
If I don't want to talk to people who want to be anonymous, *why should
your desire to be anonymous trump my right to not talk to you*?
Hold it. Down, boy, I'm an old SPF advocate. I'm denying the claim that
there is *no* legitimate use for faking Caller-ID, just as I deny the claim
that there is no legitimate use for spoofing email addresses. OK? Are we on
the same page there? It's easy to get so rabid about anti-spam or
anti-whatever that you forget that there are very legitimate reasons to want
to allow concealed or anonymized communications without a directly traceable
route back to the sender.
Now, given the overwhelming abuse of spoofing email addresses, or the
potential for abusing things like spoofed Caller-ID, it's reasonable to
disable them or not permit them, forcing users to find other means to route
their communications for their convenience or protection.