Re: Anti-spam WG agenda RIPE 41

[furio ercolessi <]

> Rodney.Tillotson@localhost,Internet writes:
> >Please suggest more or better things we should discuss.

Unfortunately I will not be able to attend.

I would like to mention the fact that RIPE-206 does not seem to
address much the issue of spam-support services, focusing mostly
on the origination issue.
Very often we report spam-advertised pages to other ISPs, and
receive answers like "Sorry, the spam was not sent using
our servers, and we have no way to verify that our customer
is really involved" [of course these ISPs may later found themselves
in some blacklist].  "Joe-jobs" can also occur, but we know 
that in most cases spam advertising a page is sent by the page 
owner, or by an agency paid by the page owner.

I believe that Best Current Practices should be somehow extended
to address this issue  [of course spam-support service is not just 
web pages: it includes dropboxes, DNS service, payment services and 
other resources].

Also, the problem of enforcement is quite serious.  There are
several european ISPs or networks that appear to ignore 
systematically all complaints, even when origination is reported.  
Such ISP are totally non-conforming to RIPE-206.
italian Interbusiness/TIN and french Wanadoo are the first examples 
that come to my mind, but we all know that there is no shortage 
of blackhat ISPs [for the reasons beautifully presented two days ago 
by Jeffrey Race in http://www.camblab.com/misc/spamdraf.txt ]. 

When there is clear evidence that an ISP or network is
totally overboard, I believe that some penalty mechanism
(other than conventional blocking lists used on a voluntary basis)
should start to take place.
Would it be feasible for RIPE to start thinking about if and how 
penalty mechanisms could be implemented?  What about delays in
the supply of RIPE NCC services?

furio ercolessi
Spin
http://www.spin.it/spam/#eng