Tracking SPAM (Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful)

Mark Milhollan mlm at
Wed Oct 29 18:29:33 UTC 1997

Phil Lawlor writes:
>At 06:32 PM 10/28/97 -0500, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>>Indeed.  As we noted last month on the topic of ingress filtering, you
>>have to catch this stuff on the _intake_ side, to have any real hope of
>>spotting the offenders.
>Back to sender verification (equivalent of caller ID).
>This would allow better reporting of AUP violations to the sending domain
>from the receiving domain.  Logs could be used to document the violation. 

This is already present in most present MTA's.  While the present
method might mean that a series of actions will be necessary, it does
point a direct finger at the immediately previous point in the SPAM

As I said in a previous [private] message, I would be very interested
in reading about your solution.  I hope that it takes personal privacy
and determined privateering into account, i.e., that a person will not
have their identity revealed without their consent, and that it does
not depend too heavily on the sender's software (which the SPAMMER's
will certainly write to their own needs), respectively.

More information about the NANOG mailing list