Subject: Re: draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-02.txt

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 21:07:00 +0700

Date:        Thu, 5 Jun 2003 06:47:21 -0700 
    From:        "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | The FTC and Congress are taking action.

That is certainly good news.   It would be useful if those of you
with any kind of contacts (direct, indirect, ...) could point out
that the real problem is the abuse of the address list - sending
spam is just one possible result from that.

Much of Europe (I am told) already has legal protection for personal
data (which would include e-mail addresses) - it would be good for
the US (and yes, Australia too - and the rest of the world) to emulate
that,

Without address lists, spammers would have nowhere to go.

  | This is not a case where the IETF can say 'we don't think that is a 
  | problem', refuse to solve it and remain credible.

No - there clearly is a problem.   But there is zero technical difference
between spam and ordinary e-mail.   Even the "bulk" that people used to
assert as a differentiator has been bent now - much of the spam I get
is addressed to me specifically, and includes a salutation aimed at
me (or the best they can do using one of many "role" type e-mail addresses
they've obtained) - and if often (apparently) from people I know (at
first glance anyway - a few seconds examination shows the differences).

The definition now is (apparently) not the same mail to many recipients,
but similar mail - which is probably why much spam these days has all
kinds of random garbage appended, randomly generated I assume, so it
doesn't look similar to any other copy of itself.

If spam and e-mail are the same thing (content excepted) which I assert
they are, there cannot be a technical way of stopping spam without also
stopping e-mail.   People can limit their own exposure to some spam using
technical mechanisms, but that doesn't make it go away, it just hides it
from their view.

It needs to be made to go away completely - and that means that anyone
found with my address in any list of addresses, without having received
(and verified) my explicit consent for its use for some particular purpose
(or using it for any other purpose) ought to be gaoled (or billion dollar
fines for corporations, and gaol for their directors).

Of course - just having the address is not going to cause problems, so
no-one need be paranoid, as if it isn't used, no-one would no, no complaint,
no investigation.   Use it, I complain, blam...

To make proof easier, evidence of having sent similar e-mail to more than
20 recipients should be primae facie evidence of a list existing.

kre

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:07:57 -0400 (EDT)

This is an over statement.

Spam is a problem. It is annoyance. We would *love* to see it go away. But
it is not the end of the world, as some would like to think.

The actions Congress has been taking have been to protect Type 1 spammers,
and clearly separate the Type 1 from the Type 2 and Type 3 spammers.
They are not banning spam. If anything, they are promoting it, by
addressing the fraud problem.  Type 1 spammers are bonafide commerical
operations, and will abide by whatever rules are in place. They have a lot
of money, and a big lobby. They are not going away, no matter how much
Type 3 spam radical anti-spammers send.

The actions the FTC has been taking (via press releases) is partly due to
misleading statements made to the FTC, and in part due to the FTC
excluding participation of people with opposing views, which is a
violation of due process, and civil rights, and other rules.  FTC
attorneys are investing these false statements, particularly with respect
to open relays.

The IETF also cannot remain credible by attempting to solve problems that
can't be solved technically. Nor can it be credible by reacting
emotionally instead of calmly.  Emotional appeals do not make effective
technical arguments.

Any schemes to stop spam, would apply equally to terrorist communications,
which we also want to stop. "Osama bin Laden prevented from sending
instructions to Al Quaeda because open relays were closed. Al Quaeda
neutralized as a result".  Of course, that's absurd, but no more so than
schemes to stop spam.

		--Dean

On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> > We can't go off in wild directions. We need to know that we will get a
> > return on the investment.  Spam isn't a big problem. Its an annoying
> > problem.
>
> If you don't understand how big a problem spam is then your comments are
> simply irrelevant.
>
> Spam is the method organized crime uses to run confidence tricks on the
> Internet. The people sending this stuff are hard core criminals with
> convictions for cocaine trafficking, money laundering, fraud etc.
>
> The volume of spam is such that the ISPs are already taking action.
> The FTC and Congress are taking action.
>
> This is not a case where the IETF can say 'we don't think that is a
> problem', refuse to solve it and remain credible.
>
> 		Phill
>