Subject: [Asrg] Hello- and my 2 cents

From: "Murali Krishna Devarakonda" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:18:44 -0700

Thank you, everyone who is participating in ASRG. This has reiforced my faith in technological innovation- which has become a casualty to commercialization and politics, far too often these days.

I firmly believe that none of the anti-spam companies are out there with any serious desire to prevent spam, but simply to profit from the problem. Nothing wrong with that- that's the American way.
But it's also the American way to innovate, and that's why I'm heartened to find it alive and kicking, here.

I'll get out of my soapbox now, and share my thoughts with you. 
If it's been said before (perhaps many times?), please accept my apologies.

I agree with the principles underlying this group, namely that taking on spam requires three components:
Consent Expression, Policy Enforcement, and Source Tracking.

Here's what I'd like to see in these components.
1. Consent Expression:
        - a potential sender must "request" "permission" to send to a receiver
        - the "request" and the "permission" **should not** be emails- 
                instead they should be a API-based feature of the protocol, like 'ping'
            % implications:
                $ since there would be *no message* included in the request, 
                            there's no value in it for the spammer, and
                            there's no pain for the receiver.
                $ the number of times a request can be made again should be configurable- never, once in a month or year, etc.
                    (to allow for email that one may not want today, but may be open to later)
                $ the "permission" would function similar to the "request"
2. Enforcement & Source Tracking:
        - It is critical that a globally unique identity scheme be accepted and implemented- 
                % perhaps out of the scope of ASRG.
                        $ digital signatures, PGP-like encryption may work, but
                        $ a global identity- the digital equivalent of a unique-SSN should be required for all email communication
                               ~ it's critical to effectively implement the "request" and "permission" semantics
                               ~ the protocol should make it impossible to forge- 
                                        combining a unique identity and built-in PGP-like encryption

These are my first thoughts. 

Any comments?

Regards,
Murali Krishna Devarakonda

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:01:15 -0400

At 2:18 AM -0700 4/22/03, Murali Krishna Devarakonda wrote:
>I firmly believe that none of the anti-spam companies are out there 
>with any serious desire to prevent spam, but simply to profit from 
>the problem. Nothing wrong with that- that's the American way.

Nothing like starting out a discussion by calling a number of people 
on the list liars.  But what the heck, I'll keep reading.

>                 $ the number of times a request can be made again 
>should be configurable- never, once in a month or year, etc.

And who will enforce that?

But you missed the biggest implication.  I have to be online in order 
to receive a request.  Not only that, I have to be on the internet.

>                         $ a global identity- the digital equivalent 
>of a unique-SSN should be required for all email communication
- Politically infeasible
- Technically improbable
- Mind-boggling infrastructure requirements
- I assume you really didn't mean SSN.  Mentioning SSN's in any 
discussion of "identity" is trolling for a flame war
- So who is going to make sure that [pick-a-random-country] is going 
to hand out only one identity to anyone who gives them some money

-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 11:25:46 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>

> ...

The floods of spam supposedly from Belize as well as the floods
nominally from The Principality of Sealand are object lessons.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Kee Hinckley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:01:06 -0400

>nominally from The Principality of Sealand are object lessons.

Has Sealand been spamming?  I was always afraid that was what would 
happen with them.
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/          Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/   Writings on Technology and Society

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:00:59 -0600 (MDT)

> Has Sealand been spamming? 

Judging from spam I've seen, the following domain names are somehow
associated directly or indirectly with "Net Solution Group, Sealand"
and "The Principality of Sealand":

    accretive-networks.net accretivetg.net addadomainforyoutomail.com
    addthisonetoo.com adultrevenueservice.com adventuresofkikkoman.com
    analthrusting.com attackofthescififreaks.com bitpushers.net
    bogeyatfouroclock.com cccp0007.com dos211isthebest.com downinone.net
    dsjkeoeofl.com dude-machine.com ebony-perfection.com eighteenies.com
    fatnfabulous.com flyingcroc.com i2intl.com ings.com itscoldinthewinter.net
    jfdsoweoflsdoe.com jillofthejungle.com jsdakkjweoifi.com jsoeof.net
    mankilledthedodo.com mig27willkillyou.com montana-investments.com
    okanemochininarudomain.com oldandslutty.com perfect-lesbians.com
    philgetslaid.com pissingdreams.com pornparks.com pounded-pussies.com
    randomnessduplicity.com signup4sex.com somethingniceandsweet.com
    soyawannabeapirate.net stalingradisagreatplace.com superfunhappyslide.com
    tenmorethenimdone.com thatshowitall-started.net thingsthatgoblue.com
    thisoneisnumbereighteen.net thisturnsyouon.com totalfreehosting.net
    trannybeauties.com underworlddisco.net vbtnij.com veryweirdsex.com
    weregoingtocrashack.com whatistheproblemmrrogers.com
    whoodoggy.com workingwithwood.net

See also http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Sealand+group%3A*abuse.sightings
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22net+solution+group%22+group%3A*abuse.sightings

Without a request from principals of those organizations, I'd rather
not disclose what I consider evidence of direct or indirect associations
among them.

The associations with Sealand claimed by the spammers might be false, but
that does not affect the underlying point that a letter of introduction
written by a stranger and presented by a stranger is a waste for time for
all concerned unless one of the participants is a fool.

>                             I was always afraid that was what would 
> happen with them.

Given economic realities and their geographic location, I never
understood how they could pay the bills with legitimate enterprise
or serious crime.  As far as I can tell that leaves petty mischief
such as spam.