Subject: Re: [Asrg] Legal Suggestions ....

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 21:08:35 -0700

The telcos do not guarantee to connect every call. They certainly would not
connect calls with fake caller id.

The tellcos are within their rights to drop calls in three circumstances.
First their network is overloaded. Second their customer asks them to. Third
the call has fake connection data.

I think isps should inform their customers before blocking mails. I think
they should also inform the party they block and why. They don't need to
state a reason for eac message though.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Steven G. Willis
Sent:	Sun Apr 13 19:00:25 2003
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: [Asrg] Legal Suggestions ....

On 04/13/2003 at 19:01 it appears John Fenley <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Personaly I think it is the recipients responsability to block their own 
>spam. It upsets me when I hear about legitimate mail being blocked. any 
>"good faith" system using todays weak reasoning will dump some legitimate 
>mail. Ulimately it is the recipients decision about what they want to 
>recieve. I feel that any system to block mail, that is not agreed to by the

>recipients, should be illegal. There are substantial penalties for 
>interfering with postal mail. Email should be as protected as postal mail
is 
>from third party interference.

This is a very good point to consider. At the very least, any blocking
systems in place must have a means available for individual users to review
what is being blocked and what affect this has on traffic into their email
account(s). Without this provision, the variability of the definition of
spam will continue to remain a contentious issue with no resolution.

I shoudl say, this does _not_ in _any_ way mean I condone actions of the
spammers. What I am trying to make clear is that each individual with an
email address will make their own judgements on what is spam and what is
not. This means the facilities must be made available for each individual to
make these choices as they see fit best to make.

================================================================
Steven G. Willis     [email-masked]       772.794.9494
Deep Sky Technologies, Inc.          http://www.deepskytech.com/
http://www.badchickens.com/         http://www.store-secure.com/
================================================================
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Steven G. Willis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 04:14:40 +0100

On 04/13/2003 at 21:08 it appears Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[email-masked]> wrote:

>The telcos do not guarantee to connect every call. They certainly
>would not connect calls with fake caller id.
>
>The tellcos are within their rights to drop calls in three
>circumstances. First their network is overloaded. Second their
>customer asks them to. Third the call has fake connection data.
>
>I think isps should inform their customers before blocking mails. I
>think they should also inform the party they block and why. They don't
>need to state a reason for eac message though.

I agree completely.

Informing the end users of the systems in place is a very important step. There must be a consideration though that invariably the explanation will contain technical details are are well beyond most users. For this, I do not know what the best solution is (sure, education is the solution, but I mean a "realistic" solution).

Consider, also, what exactly do you consider the by "faked caller ID" as it applies to email?

Does this include an incorrect From: in the headers?

What about an incorrect or incomplete remote name identified in the HELO/EHLO exchange?

No reverse NS for the email server?

I am sure you can see the problems that would exist with all of these alternatives for identifying "faked" email information...

---

From: J C Lawrence <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 22:06:37 -0700

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 04:14:40 +0100 

>> I think isps should...

> I agree completely.

Be cautious here of the difference between "should" and "must".  This is
really a question of best practices, not technical contract.

-- 
J C Lawrence                
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. 
[email-masked]               He lived as a devil, eh?		  
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Jim Youll <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 08:08:09 -0400

>the call has fake connection data.

Points of order:

Carriers do not test "caller ID" and they don't always know what it should be.
They certainly can and will pass fake CNID.

For example, when a call originates in a PBX, the CNID data is generated at the
(private) PBX and the carrier has no involvement.

There is a possible hack for non-PBX points of origin that involves blasting a
caller ID across the circuit once it's completed (it's just fancy 
modem-style tones),
in the hope that the CNID receiver at the other end will hear your ID 
and update
its display. Post-connection traffic is not of interest to the 
switchgear, so there
won't be monitoring there. Caller ID boxes with memories should be 
able to display
both received numbers anyway.