Re: [Asrg] [IP] do-not-email list canned

["George Ou" <george_ou at netzero.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kee Hinckley" <nazgul at somewhere.com>
To: "George Ou" <george_ou at netzero.com>
Cc: <asrg at ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Asrg] [IP] do-not-email list canned

>I'm not aware of any anti-spammer court suit where
>the final result paid for the cost of the action.  (The verdict may
>have--but the actual recovered money didn't.)  That means that such
>suits practically remain open only to major ISPs (as warning shots)
>and the government (which tends to stick to stuff that is illegal
>even without the spam).  The ISP suits may eventually drive the
>spammers away from major ISPs as targets--but that's just going to
>make life harder for everyone else.

Why should this remain a civil case matter?  Why not a criminal matter?
Microsoft has some high profile cases in court against spammers, but I'm
wondering why the FCC isn't going after the same people in a criminal case
since clearly they have already been tracked down by Microsoft.

> We need domain authentication, but not to win the war--just to keep
> from losing ground.

I think you make some excellent points.  I would agree with almost all of
your assessment.  All the zombies have given spammers an upper hand recently
and domain authentication should at least tip the scale back to neutral.

I do think that it will help to gain a little ground if only in the sense
that spammers, viruses, and worms can no longer spoof your legitimate domain
(at least without hijacking your machine they can't).  As one previous post
mentioned, all those virus warning messages from legitimate SMTP servers
could stop.  It gets really anoying when so many users constantly complain
to our support folks that they think they're sending out viruses when in
fact that they are not.


George Ou


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