Re: [Asrg] Spam Control Complexity -- scaling, adoption, diversit y and scenarios [evidence for legal actions]

[Andrzej Filip <anfi@Box43.pl>]

At Apr 2003 23:12:49 -0400 Kee Hinckley wrote:

> At 9:57 PM +0200 4/22/03, Andrzej Filip wrote:
>
> > e.g. making MTAs record bounces to non existing local addresses may 
> > help in legal actions against "sender faking" spammers.
> >
> > It would require MTA to reject messages from <> to non existing local 
> > recipient in reply to "final dot" instead of reply to RCPT TO: => 
> > bounce but keep for possible legal action
> Legally require people to keep a copy of bounces to non-existent 
> addresses? 
I merely suggested making it "technically possible" and recomended, you 
suggest the logical next step - making it legally required for (some?) 
companies/ISPs.
[I will try to use more precise wording next time]

> Sigh.  Time to buy another disk I guess.
Tapes may be more suitable for the task.
How many messages from <> to non existing local users YOUR site bounces 
per day ?

> Of course there's the minor problem that that means I have to collect 
> the message instead of bounce it at RCPT time.  
Replace "have to" by "can" to get what I wanted to suggest.

> Who's going to pay for the upgrade to my bandwidth?
You. Have you expected another answer ?

Are you ready to tell in public that you do not give a dam about who 
fakes sender addresses in your email domain ?

--
Andrzej [pl>en: Andrew] Adam Filip http://www.polbox.com/a/anfi/



_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg