Re: Opt-out ? we do know the "bounce" command...
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 14:30:42 +0200 (MET DST)
>From owner-anti-spam-wg@localhost Wed Jul 18 17:11:28 2001
>Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010718171052.00793710@localhost>
>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:10:52 +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: <200107181501.RAA08059@localhost>
> >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
> > From: <Piet.Beertema@localhost
> >would be fraud as well.
>Since I know you, I'd chase you personally for that. ;-)
That's *one* reason for not doing so - not the only one, though :-).
>Unfortunately what you think is not the case. At least not here.
>We had such a case a couple of years ago. Then the spammer used
>an existing e-mail address of one of our top researchers, which
>did a lot of harm to his reputation. So we reported it to the
>"specialized departments" within the police, asking them to take
>action. They couldn't, because there was no law that they could
>base action on... :-( No, we didn't consult a lawyer thereafter.
Sigh! Maybe it's time top re-visit an old suggestion. It was brought
up at a RIPE anti-spam BOF and I think I took it to this list, where
it got bashed and dropped. It's not mine originally, but here we go:
Obviously the legal system doesn't help us. Volunteer-based services
like ORBS don't help either (just look at the current aftermath and
consider the amount of "baby out with the bathwater" risks). So, what
remains are contracts.
Every spammer and every open Mail Relay has some relation to an ISP,
it may not be formal and on paper but it still exist. Have every ISP
make a clear statement/contract with its custommers saying spamming
and open Mail Relays is/are prohibited (probably with wording like
"custommer will only use opt-in for advertising"). Have every ISP
act accordingly. Then we can start refusning mail from those whose
ISPs doesn't agree and act. If "we" are more then "they" "we" might
win; if not - sigh again, and we're still on square one.
I know this will be bashed and I already hear "impossible" comments.
Fine with me; square one is waiting. But since everything else seems
to fail, maybe this has to be at least considered.
Gunnar
