SV: [anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an

Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2010, at 16:29, Frank Gadegast , Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast wrote:
> 
>> Hi,

Hi,

>>> I think the following should be the "easiest" way of reducing spam:
>>>
>>> 1. Adding that the ISP should have a responsibily to reduce spam to the contract between the ISP and RIPE. (If as only adding "ISP should try to reduce spam" with no other details.)
>> Yes, but this has to be formulated a way, that the recipient decides
>> what spam is, so that there has no definition of spam to be included.
>>
>> So: RIPE has to add to the members contract, that the member is responsible
>> for receiving abuse reports and reducing the cause of these reports as much as possible.
> 
> You cannot expect anyone to sign a contract which expects them to take action against something which has not been defined.

Again, the above sentence is not talking about abuse, its talking about 
abuse reports, or name it complaints, when you like that more.
You dont need a definition of abuse, if you make the member
responsible for taking care of complaints.

Abuse is then everything what the recipient or attack person like to 
complain about, because he feels abused.

>>> 2. Measure how much spam originates from each ISP.
>> Difficult to formulate this way.
>>
>> Better would be: RIPE has to start to messure the amount of abuse reports any member receives.
>> Messurement systems have to include a system run by RIPE NCC and could include
>> other reliable data from souces not related to RIPE.
> 
> This means that all the spam reports would have to go via RIPE which is not a good idea for a multitude of reasons.

Looks like you did not read the DRAFT at all.
Thats excatly why we need a system at RIPE.
And the pros and cons of such a system are discussed here since last week.

>>> 3. Give RIPE possibility to fine the misbehaving ISP or to cancel the agreement in worst case scenario.
>> A big yes, but we will have to find consensus here, whats worse
>> and what punishment could happen, there are a lot of possibilities.
> 
> You cannot expect anyone to agree to being fined without workable definitions

Again, you dont need a definition.
Its only important that the members takes care about complaints.

>>> Cons. I dont know if the spamreports on spamcop are reliable or if they can be forged by spammers. I guess their shoud be some way of fixing that problem if that is the case.
>> The system is well known, and most big provider use it
> 
> That's a wonderfully broad sweeping statement.
> 
> Do you have proof to back that up?

No, and I dont have too, because I sayd, that RIPE needs an own system
to be bullet-proof, toher source "could" be used to proof
own data, nothing more.


Kind regards, Frank

>>> Martin Tranefjord
>>>
> 
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
> ICANN Accredited Registrar
> http://www.blacknight.com/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://mneylon.tel
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> US: 213-233-1612 
> UK: 0844 484 9361
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
--
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