RE: Anti-spam WG agenda RIPE 41

[<]

furio ercolessi [furio+as@localhost] wrote:

> 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].

yes, and provision of IP addresses too - it's a service?

> 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?

I agree. It seems rather strange that much of this RIPE anti-spam group
discussion is about methods of multiple agencies blocking particular IPs,
some of which are provided by RIPE. As this is the RIPE anti-spam group,
surely discussion should concentrate on how an AUP and technical measures
can be put in place by RIPE to allow them to remove IPs from those who abuse
them.

This is the only way Sprint, UUnet, Exodus, etc. who all knowingly host spam
outfits (see Spamhaus.org) could be brought under control. There is every
monetary incentive for them to continue to host spammers - they get a fat
wedge of danger money, and then more money from all of us for the bandwidth
used to receive the spam. I don't claim to know the technical side of how
the IPs are allocated or work but surely that which can be given can also be
taken away. And it would be cheaper and more effective than us all investing
in further measures to block certain IPs when they could be more completely
cut off at source.

Paul Gay
Director
Cactusoft Ltd.


"I'd sooner have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy..."