North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Tracking SPAM (Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful)
Phil Lawlor writes: >At 06:32 PM 10/28/97 -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: >>Indeed. As we noted last month on the topic of ingress filtering, you >>have to catch this stuff on the _intake_ side, to have any real hope of >>spotting the offenders. > >Back to sender verification (equivalent of caller ID). > >This would allow better reporting of AUP violations to the sending domain >from the receiving domain. Logs could be used to document the violation. This is already present in most present MTA's. While the present method might mean that a series of actions will be necessary, it does point a direct finger at the immediately previous point in the SPAM path. As I said in a previous [private] message, I would be very interested in reading about your solution. I hope that it takes personal privacy and determined privateering into account, i.e., that a person will not have their identity revealed without their consent, and that it does not depend too heavily on the sender's software (which the SPAMMER's will certainly write to their own needs), respectively.