On Tue, 27 May 2003, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Dean writes: > > > Of these types of spam, Type 1 and Type 2 > > can be dealt with by law ... > > Not on a worldwide network. No organization or government has worldwide > jurisdiction. They don't need worldwide juridiction. They have control over products sold in their jurisdiction, and the transfer of money into and out of those jurisdictions. Many countries have extradition treaties. > > What is unclear is how much of the total spam > > is due to each of these types. A lot of the spam > > that I recieve, and I have kept all this for > > some time now, appears to be from type 3B. > > Almost everything I get seems to be Type 1, although I don't look at it very > closely. Perhaps you should look more closely. > > I note that helllabs.com.ua makes false and > > misleading claims that relays and proxies are free. > > What is false about such claims? That they are free. First, only the owner of the service can make definitive statements about the price of the service. False statements made by others are just that, false. Newspaper stands and sidewalk vendor carts are also unsecured, but taking their products without permission or payment is theft. Telling others that they can take those products without paying is solicition of a crime at worst, and false advertising and trademark infringement at best. Telephone systems can also have open relay services configured, but it is well established that unuathorized use is toll fraud. > > But what protocols can be specified to reduce or > > eliminate spam? > > Almost none. The problem is that spam is in the eye of the beholder. > Catching it with machine intelligence is practically impossible. It's like > trying to scan messages for sarcasm. True. --Dean