Re: Opt-out ? we do know the "bounce" command...
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:01:58 +0200 (MET DST)
>From Piet.Beertema@localhost Wed Jul 18 16:26:04 2001
>Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010718162345.007acc40@localhost>
>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:23:45 +0200
>To: Gunnar Lindberg lindberg@localhost
>From: Piet Beertema <Piet.Beertema@localhost
>Subject: Re: Opt-out ? we do know the "bounce" command...
>In-Reply-To: <200107181408.QAA08033@localhost>
>References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107181402570.13573-100000@localhost>
>>Why not find something common to most spam that can be made illegal.
>>My 0.01 ECU would be "fraud From", i.e. when a spammer sends out mail
>> From xyz@localhost
>>which puts blame on bit.nl as well as creates a technical burden (we
>>have had exactly that problem for quite some time - adm.chalmers.se
>>is brought down at times by a large number of error bounces).
>Same here, although not to the extent of bringing down our
>mail server. But how on earth are you ever going to assess
>the "damage" caused by such spam?
I'm not. I am far from sure, but I *think* that it's illegal to send
out paper mail that claims to be
From: Piet Beertema, Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica
I think that would be called "fraud" and I think doing so in email
From: <Piet.Beertema@localhost
would be fraud as well. What I'm after is to say that xxx@localhost
is along the same line and that it too should be called fraud. As
I said, I don't know - I'm not a legal expert, but since most other
approaches seems to fail, I'm trying to come up with something that
people with legal expertise might make use of. If that fails, never
mind - we're stuck in square one anyway...
Gunnar
