This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] themes on lists and meetings
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Frank Gadegast
phade at www.powerweb.de
Wed Apr 7 09:25:53 CEST 2010
> > HI, Frank! Hi, > Feel your frustration. But do a quick google search on FUSSP. April fools day if over ... > Anyway, your solution would impose costs on others (i.e. RIPE, other ISPs), Sure, but they can easily be shared with the same method that RIPE uses for the member fees, big ISPs pay more, small ones less. In fact it will be simple some costs at RIPE. And who cares what a spamming provider will have to invest to get his customers cleaned ? Im somehow getting the idea, that those people on this list that are always AGAINST any idea ARE these providers, that are too lazy to control their spambotted customers. Could that be the final reason why we do not find a solution ? I added some more statistics to our own blacklist. Then I will run the ASes of everyboy on this list Im aware off through this statistics next month and gonna post the results to this list, lets see ... Maybe everybody on this list running a blacklist or statistics about spam he receives should do this too. > and would be easily abused to destroy an ISP you don't like. How that ? By sending fake reports to RIPE clearing address ? I recommended that the ISP has to categorize the report himself like you can do on spamcop too, he can simply select "no spam from us" and thats it. And RIPE can control the behaviour of the ISP easily with some simple statistics ... The system should work fuzzy-like, only the really bad ones get punished and the ones with little problems get away. And RIPE can easily reject reports coming from the same IPs all the time ... or the ISP under a fake attack can talk to RIPE about it, that problem isnt really hard to solve. Kind regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank at powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank at powerweb.de > > > -- > Esa Laitinen > Tel. +41 76 200 2870 > skype/yahoo: reunaesa > > --000e0cd1145cbf98e60483a02e56 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > HI, Frank!<br><br>Feel your frustration. But do a quick google search on FUSSP.<br><br>Anyway, your solution would impose costs on others (i.e. RIPE, other ISPs), and would be easily abused to destroy an ISP you don't like.<br> > <br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Esa Laitinen<br>Tel. +41 76 200 2870<br>skype/yahoo: reunaesa<br> > > --000e0cd1145cbf98e60483a02e56-- >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] themes on lists and meetings
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]