[anti-abuse-wg] Antispam measures

Hi,

I'm going to be repeating some of what Florian said, but hopefully not all!

Chimel Chimel wrote the following on 20/10/2009 22:10:
> Hi,
> 
> I am not sure this mailing list is still active, the latest archived
> mail dates back from over a year ago.

The Anti-Spam WG became the Anti-Abuse WG in or around a year ago.  The
Anti-Abuse WG mailing list is definitely active.

> I have 3 questions for this mailing list:
> 
> 1) Does RIPE or other registrars impose antispam fighting measures or a
> code of conduct to the ISPs or telcos it allocates IP ranges to?
> For instance, do these registrar customers specifically sign an
> agreement never to post spam themselves. Do they also sign an agreement
> to terminate IP sub-allocation or contract with their own customers who
> are using their IP addresses to post spam?

There is an existing RIPE document, RIPE-409, Good Practice in
Minimising E-mail Abuse, which is a BCP document written for ISPs.  This
is not a code of conduct, per se, not is it imposed, but it is what the
RIPE community thinks a good Internet citizen should do.  There is no
specific agreement signed as part of becoming a member.  So, really, the
answer is no, but the BCP document does exist and it will be expanded
shortly.

> 2) If there is such measures, how does RIPE enforce them?

The RIPE NCC do not police their members activities in this way.  There
was some information given as part of the NCC Services WG session at
RIPE 59 discussing the circumstances in which the NCC would close a
registry and also the limitations inherent in the actions the NCC can
take in this regard.

> 3) What does RIPE intends to do about Ukrtelecom, who is alone
> responsible for hundreds of thousands of daily spam posts in discussion
> forums and BBSs?

If you are asking what does the RIPE NCC plan to do about individual
ISPs or members, then you should direct your questions to them, rather
than to this WG, which is part of the RIPE community, not the NCC.  This
is an important difference.

Florian's answer to this point covers it well, these things are often
not as straightforward as they are painted.  If this ISP is breaking the
law in the Ukraine, then it should be dealt with by the local law
enforcement there.  The RIPE NCC, as mentioned, is limited in the
reasons it has to close a member, such as non-payment of fees or breach
of contract, and even if they did shut a member down, this does not stop
that member from continuing to use the resourses.  There is no kill switch.

If you feel that the NCC should have more/different powers in this area,
then it is up to the community to create a policy that will get
consensus.  However, registries are not the Internet police, this is an
important point to remember.

Regards,

Brian
Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG