First U.S. charges issued for suspected spammers
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/19949.php
Jim
On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 17:49, Fred Wright wrote:
> At 05:00 PM 4/29/04, you wrote:
> >Message: 12
> >Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:52:11 -0700
> >From: Carl Parrish <cparrish@carlparrish.com>
> >To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> >Subject: Re: Secure mailing lists Was: my public key
> >Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> Perhaps I should make this a separate thread however I feel the need to
> > >> bring this up. The open source community is going to have to address
> > >> these concerns before M$ does. If we do it we have a small chance of
> > >> keeping the standards open if M$ comes up with a viable (or even
> > >> believable ) solution before we do we can say goodbye to an open
> > >> internet. Everyday now I receive bounce mail that I never sent out. I
> > >> have to assume that some spam list somewhere is sending spam out
> > >> claiming to be from me. We have to be able to stop that. It shouldn't be
> > >> too hard to create a mailing list that only allows signed messages
> > >> though. But perhaps we should be thinking on a grander scale how about a
> > >> mail server that only routes gpg signed msgs. How about a mail filter
> > >> that puts all unsigned messages in a seperate folder. None of the
> > >> current issues with mail are really big. In fact I believe the
> > >> technology is mostly there already but if we don't put them all together
> > >> (think napster) M$ is going to hijack the web.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Carl Parrish(cparrish@carlparrish.com)
> > >> http://www.carlparrish.com
> > >> --
> > >> Registered Linux User #295761 http://counter.li.org
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that prior discussions on this issue had concluded that the
> > > "sending" ISP needs to verify that the sending user is who he/she says
> > > they are. Earthlink uses SMTPAUTH. If that is not adequate, what is?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >What happens when the spammer *is* the ISP?
>
> How do you mean *the spammer is the ISP*? How is any identifiable spammer
> exempt from prosecution even if they are an ISP?
>
> Today's news included some discussion about spammers arrested in
> Detroit. They were spoofing addresses and were caught by the law officers
> attempting to purchase whatever the spammers were selling. I haven't been
> able to trace down a print copy of the story.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)