RE: Anti-spam WG agenda RIPE 41

[Mally Mclane <]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 paul@localhost wrote:

> 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.

[please note these my own views]

The RIPE NCC does not interfere with routing polices and has no technical
or operational control over any of the networks using any of the IPs
allocated by the RIPE NCC.

Though some ISPs do use the RIPEdb for building the routing macros, I
don't see how the NCC could stop someone from routing their IPs.

m