[anti-abuse-wg] Enabling community self-help?

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote:

> It might be a failure of imagination on my part, but I think that
> attempting to prevent "bad guys" from getting addresses involves extra
> work to prove somehow that they companies not criminal. I don't see a
> lot of call by LIRs to increase the amount of paperwork and delay when
> dealing with the RIPE NCC. :)

Did you calculate just how much expense your colleagues in another
department (security or spam filtering or whatever) face because you
can't collectively be bothered to do some paperwork, and/or RIPE NCC
can't be bothered to streamline and automate their processes?

> Does ROKSO cover any issue, or just spam? Certainly there is nothing
> preventing anyone who can afford a VPS from setting up some reputation
> site, but if it was RIPE NCC-hosted it might have a different level of
> gravitas.

It covers groups or people that have a long history of spam and
termination from at least three service providers for violation of
their policies.

But the word "spam" - and so the category of people listed in ROKSO -
covers everything from unsolicited marketing of mail order junk
(borderline fraud at worst), to criminals involved in credit card
theft and child pornography.

As for "reputation" wrt spam - I would take spamhaus' word for this
over the word of any organization or community that is "not the
document police".  You see, if you are not the document police and
then go around publishing something about a netblock's reputation
being bad or fishy .. well then, you have published that based on very
little actual fact available to you.   So why would I or anybody else
value it for more than the paper (or sectors on a hard disk) it is
written on?

--srs