[rescue] Spam (was: Perverse Question)
Charles Shannon Hendrix
shannon at widomaker.com
Sat Jun 7 22:43:48 CDT 2003
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 02:58:47PM -0400, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 11:19:33AM -0400, Patrick Giagnocavo +1.717.201.3366
> > wrote:
> > > I guess this is going OT, but my opinion is that simply passing a law
> > > that forging email headers is illegal would pretty much fix what needs
> > > to be fixed.
> On the other side of this, something as simple as outlawing forging
> email headers hurts legitimate uses also. How many people here have
> "forged" the from header so that you can send email from your work
> smtp server but get responses to your main personal account?
...and there are those of us on dynamic IP addresses, who run a private
LAN, and who have to forge some of the headers to make our email work.
However, I think this kind of forging is going to look far different
from most spam forging, right?
Dynamic network connections have always made email a bitch.
My setup works, but I've never been totally happy with it.
> At the same time, it might be nice to have spammers activity to be
> illegal, not just distasteful as it is right now. But the key would
> be intelligently crafting a law, something which our legislature may
> not be up to.
Right now they are creating a spam-friendly bill. They, Microsoft, and
the DMA are calling it anti-spam, but it looks to me like it gives
spam a permanent role, and worse, legitimizes it.
Tell you the truth, I don't just want to stop net-spam, I was *ALL*
unsolicited advertising to stop.
Do you realize how much we pay every day to support all forms of
Plus, eventually the stress levels it induces are going to make someone
test their marksmanship on Madison Avenue one rainy day...
UNIX/Perl/C/Pizza____________________s h a n n o n at wido !SPAM maker.com
More information about the rescue