Re: identity theft != spam

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com>]

In message <E19GMJA-0001Em-90 () roam psg com>, Randy Bush writes:
> this exemplifies the corporate and legislative attempt to confuse
> spam == uce with forgery.  if they can make the latter the issue,
> this leaves the way completely clear for unsolicited commercial
> email from the corporate sector which now fills our post boxes with
> ground trees.
>
> randy

This is actually a follow-on to an article in the 7 May Wall Street 
Journal 
(http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105225593382372600-search,00.html?collection=wsjie%2F30day&vql_string=Carmack%3Cin%3E%28article%2Dbody%29
if you subscribe).

A brief summary is that Earthlink was going crazy trying to stop his 
spam because of his other activities.  Other mechanisms, like yanking 
his account for violating the AUP, were ineffective because of the 
identity thefts.

Of course, I'm sure that no one on this list is surprised to hear that 
spammers break the law....

                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
                http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)