[anti-abuse-wg] how to detect spambots - SPAMTrusted

Hello,

 From many previous discussions I have a hard time believing that you 
will ever reach consensus on the definition of what spam is. Trying to 
ban it would therefore be a even more difficult task.  I think the 
government is doing a good enough job defining basic rules.
Customers actually pay me to reject your email. Isn't that great! If you 
stop sending, my income will decrease. That makes me sad. Please don't 
stop (really)!

With regards to a valid contact email address, not valid abuse 
emailaddress, I still believe that it should be optional.


Cheers,


Frank Gadegast wrote:
> Jeffrey Race wrote:
>> This simple wheel reinvented many times; need only to apply
>> current knowledge.  If someone will work with me we can submit the 
>> described RFC as is or improved as needed
>>
>>
>>  <http://www.camblab.com/misc/univ_std.txt>
>>    based on
>>  <http://www.camblab.com/nugget/spam_03.pdf>
>>
>
> Great.
>
> I see two points here:
>
> - the group should define regulations to force
>   RIPE-members to detect spam originating from
>   their own IPs
> - the group should force members to have
>   a working abuse email address
>
>
> (its sad, that the once defined abuse-mailbox field
>  in RIPEs whois never made it to be a needed field,
>  this should be changed ASAP)
>
> Our own blacklist under
> http://www.dnsbl.de
> sends out thousands of spam reports daily
> to the email addresses of the network
> administrators found in RIPEs whois.
> Most email address do not work (user unknown,
> mailbox full aso), a lot do send auto-replier
> with ticket numbers (telefonica is great with
> this), but never an email, that
> the case has been solved, most do not react.
>
> Currently there are only 2% answering or fixing
> the problem.
>
> Why do we not recommend to implement a system
> at RIPE, where abuse reports could be CCed to
> (including the netblock and the email address
>  a report was sent too, the system then could
>  check, if it was the right address and store
>  a timestamp, any ISP should then be informed
>  how he could send an email to RIPE to inform
>  that hes working on it or that the case was
>  fixed) so that RIPE can messure, wich ISP is really
> fixing abuse cases ?
>
> And: if any ISP collects more than 100
> cases that are open for more than two weeks
> without any reaction, the problem network
> blocks are simply revoked by RIPE ;o)
>
>
> RIPE should be able to implement such a
> harsh system, because any member signed
> to not pollute the internet already.
>
>
> Kind regards, Frank
>
>>
>> Jeffrey Race
>>
>>
>>
>
>