From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
> Spoofed spam is harder to trace, and thus harder to shut down.
This assumes a few things I don't know:
o what does "harder to trace" refer to, what is the technical
capability of the entity performing the tracing function?
o what does "trace" actually mean?
I personally use the SpamCop reporting service and by trace I will be using
the example of what SpamCop does - parse the headers and the message in
order to ascertain: o what does "harder to shut down" refer to
o what is actually being "shut down"?
and finally, if it were easier and well-defined and easier and well-defined
It means getting in touch with their ISP and make the ISP shut down their
site or email address. It also means alerting the admins of the hacked
computers and open relays to fix their problems. It also means getting the
FTC or FBI to prosecute them. And under the slowly increasing number of
spam laws, it means having the ability for the recipients to sue the
senders directly.If every spam message sent would be easily traced or come directly from spammer@CyberPromotions.Biz then ISPs can easily sue the senders, the LAE can easier prosecute "Nigerian" scam people, and spam filters can easily block spam.o would it matter?
There is a famous quote from an old NY Times article: "On the Internet no one knows if you are a dog". But in reality, every single spam message has a physical person behind it who is sending it. Everything is logged somewhere even if for a limited time. Even though they might be switching from site to site, and from domain to domain, if we can get to the ISP logs in time before they are deleted even though the original domain name or site might no longer be there, the information gathered can still help us somewhat.Isn't every overt source an expendable asset with a finite TTL and a finite delivery queue?