From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: , <20030928101050.J27821@cackle.proxima.alt.za> Subject: Re: [9fans] spam rejection after reception does have limits Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:13:52 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 54eec522-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Lucio De Re wrote: > Choate suggests legal recourse, within the existing system. Again, > harrassment could be used, I think it would work if one could target > the perpetrator rather than some innocent, unwitting victim. Not really, since perpetrators can spring up so much more quickly than the legal system can move to punish them. If you think that "setting an example" would help much, look at previous prosecution of hackers and see what a deterrent it was. > - Legacy: can't be helped, that's where the problem lies > in the first place. Indeed, if you want to leave your mailbox open to receive mail from people using other systems, you're stuck, because there is no reliable way to distinguish between legitimate mail and proxy mail. The only technical fix for that would have to be at those systems, which need to stop acting on directions received remotely.