[anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project

Reference to the WG policy/working document ripe-409 which by all means is a
very comprehensive document, would have yield a good result if the industry
took the measures identified in the said document. I would like to raise few
points on the same.

- As many said that most of the Spam is generated from the dynamic IP
clients and usually from spam bots, than my point is why those dynamic IP
clients have the privilege to use port 25 at the first hand?

- What measures do the service provider take after receiving an abuse report
from an authority? I have my self seen totally no response from such email
generated from our anti-spam bots.

- Is "Two Strike Policy" implemented in atleast 50% of the service providers
industry within the region?

adding abuse-c contact in the RIR database doesn't allow the RIR to give any
right to enhance the ability to curb spam. As long as the service industry
is on board there is nothing RIR can do to avoid it. In my opinion the
agenda item should be based on the above three points.

My 2c

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui


On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:26 PM, furio ercolessi
<furio+as at spin.it<furio%2Bas at spin.it>
> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 06:52:43PM +0200, Jogi Hofm?ller wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 04:45:18PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> >
> > >>>> How can not anybody have an idea, how to solve the problem ?
> > >>>
> > >>> Many people have many ideas, not all of them work.  There remains no
> > >>> silver bullet.  And any recommendation made still needs to be
> adopted.
> > >>
> > >> I just discribed one arround launch time.
> > >> RIPE should urged all members to stop spam originating from their
> networks.
> >
> > Sure, once we agree on a definition for spam, that COULD work fine.
>
> Is there a disagreement on this point ? I thought it was
> "unsolicited+bulk"  (as in http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html )
> and that this definition was quite universally accepted in the industry.
>
> furio
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20100406/6df347b5/attachment.html>