From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <38d0dc3fee3ae322fbaa23c548ffc355@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [9fans] Returned mail: Service unavailable
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <007001c3687b$a5e1a340$b9844051@insultant.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 08:59:53 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1fccb85e-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> i know how to do it, but i have bad carpal tunnel.  anyway, the basic
> idea is to parse the Received: headers and bitch to every site;
> backpressure works.  you could even plumb it out of faces; punch
> the message up and say "kill 'em".
>
That's perfectly reasonable, it's something SPAMCOP (spamcop.org?)
could have thought of.  I haven't used SPAMCOP in a long time, so I
can't recall exactly what they actually do, maybe their approach is as
close to that as needed.  Can't say it's had any effect, but the swell
of indignation is certainly growing.  Perhaps a certain critical
mass needs to be reached first and we may be close to it.

Unfortunately, spoofing Received: headers has long been a weapon in
the hands of spammers, so one has to be prepared to negotiate.  On the
other hand, as mentioned before, SMTP authentication may well become
the norm, in which case the relay agent can be compelled to accept
legal liability for the resources consumed by unsolicited mail.  This
is close in practice to implementing postage stamps at the sender's
expense.

++L

PS: SPAMCOP requires one to confirm, at some bother, all
notifications, which is far too demanding for the average user, hence
a spectacular lack of success.