Re the obnoxious Tempting Tearouts spam (last word? :)

[Kurt Cockrum]

I said
>> [....]
>> Moreover, we aren't talking about random spewage from
>> some anonymous mail-server or random vandal; these are advertising
>> messages that, for them to work, and do the originator some good, require
>> an accurate address to respond to, whether snailmail, e-mail, or phone.
>> It's a *business* doing this, and they can't conduct a business without
>> leaving tracks.  So it's fair to assume that the reply addresses in
>> a piece of unsolicited e-mail are authentic.

jj said:
>Unfortunately, no.  
>
>1) How do we know that a given spamage is not some malicious vandal
>_appearing_ as a legitimate (though egregiously stupid) business, in order
>to provoke retaliation? 

We don't.  But this way lies a paralysis of infinite regress and
electronic solipsism, if we assume that all that goes clunk in our
mailbox is illusory or unreal or forged.  This is just plain unacceptable
IMO; even accidentally injuring others is better.  After all, telling
them the situation and apologising will probably fix that.  If they are
civilized, they will graciously accept the apology and perhaps even
offer assistance; if not, then they join the pack of electronic barbarians
and we are no worse off than we were before.

>2) Recall that the "Tear outs" spam had a line about "sorry, our e-mail
>can't accept return responses"(!).  They want their responses via phone or
>snail mail. Some of these offers use fictitiouse-mail addresses.  (A very
>recent example:  Media.Brokers at scn.org.  Huh?!)

Well, that's worth a complaint to somebody.  Generally, in most domains
other than the internet, it's illegal or bad manners at best to take on
bogus names.  Criminals often take on aliases.  Businesses have to publish
legal notices in newspapers of record that they are "DBA" (Doing Business
As) some other name if that differs radically from the name of the business.
There's no reason why that can't be the case on the internet, too.
In fact, a domain name is just another "dba" name.

In any case, at least one of the addresses (whether e-mail, snailmail or
phone, as I've said before) has to be authentic if it's a real ad.
If it's not, it's important that the addressees know that their name
is being used in vain.

As far as "Media.Brokers at scn.org" goes, that sounds like a SMOP (small
matter of programming).  We are supposed to know who our users are,
and the obvious agent for inspecting mail headers is (you guessed it)
the dreaded sendmail application.  That looks like it could be fixed
with another rule set in sendmail.cf that would inquire the user
data base (/etc/passwd) (it ought to be possible to do this, yes, Randy?)
and if not found, just reroute such mail to a "bogus username" file for
later action, or even silently to the bitbucket rather than sending it out.

It's important to remember that being civilized is not the same as abject
pacifism.  When Christ said to "turn the other cheek" it is commonly
interpreted to mean "present the other cheek for another blow like the
first", but it can also be interpreted as "turn out of the line of attack".
(IMO this is one of the most egregious errors of christian interpretation).
Many years ago my aikido sensei told me this; the context was that a
strong and committed attack with no opposing force (no target to connect
with and absorb the impact, because it was "turned" out of the way) will
leave the attacker off-balance, and for a very small time window, fatally
(fatally in the sense of aborting the attack, not killing the attacker.
Although the latter was possible, it would result in a subsequent drubbing
by the sensei, which nobody wanted.  Aikido is a *minimalist* art, not
a maximalist one) vulnerable.

Sorry to ramble on so, but I hope I've made my point.  Most of the problems
on the internet are because we have failed to act and think for ourselves,
but instead have let groups of elected and appointed rogues and bogus cops
act on our behalf, and dictate what our manners, morals and mores are.  So
far this has been to our great collective detriment.

I've about run out of steam on this topic, no doubt to everyone's relief.
--kurt
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
END