[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [apops] Fwd: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-2: Network Abuse]
At 04:01 AM 3/5/2003 -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
They are -required- per IETF standards. and they exist
in most places but are generally ignored.
True again
% However, the more role accounts exist, the better the chance that at least
% someone around will read and respond to a complaint on net abuse / spam.
not in my 25 years of experience.
Well, I have a bit less than 5 years of experience is all. Doing nothing
other than common or garden abuse desk work at that, but I beg to
differ. I have seen several cases where mail to postmaster etc gets
ignored, but mail to other role accounts (support, say - or hostmaster)
gets answered.
% I know about legacy delegations ... and the fact that ISPs are the ones who
% route. But the point this guy wants to make (I think) - and I agree with
% it - is that an alternative can (or rather should) be worked out to tackle
% the huge problem that bogus whois data is becoming, even with the current
% procedures in place.
why is there whois data in the first place?
To contact people responsible for a network. And what happens when said
data is bogus? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
% RICO is the *first* thing that gets suggested when this sort of thing comes
% up. However, those who do propound this idea (in a far more sensible /
ah... just what the net needs, more government regulation.
which government?
Spammers are being tracked pretty freely without much interference from
governments, right now. Informal, buddy-buddy contacts between ISP abuse
desk people, for example. Or things as simple as searching usenet archives
and listings in some of the more sensible blocklists around.
Yes, a centralized and regulated "spammer bureau" of sorts is a rather far
fetched idea, I agree.
But the two good things from this entire harebrained proposal still remain -
_what_ should be done to counter the huge - and growing - problem of stale
and/or bogus whois data?
Can a BCP advocating responsible handling of net abuse be circulated by the
RIRs to their customers? Something on the lines of
http://www.linx.net/noncore/bcp/ube-bcp.html which later developed into
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-206.html
srs
