Re: [apops] Fwd: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-2: Network Abuse]
- To: Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
- Subject: Re: [apops] Fwd: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-2: Network Abuse]
- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at outblaze dot com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 17:23:52 +0530
- Cc: apops at apops dot net
- In-reply-to: <200303051136.h25Ba9w20007 at boreas dot isi dot edu>
- List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apops/>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: Asia Pacific Operations Forum <apops.apops.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apops>,<mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apops>,<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
And, do the postmaster and root accounts exist in all places? :)% >2. All networks should [regardless of geographical location] provide % >a valid e-mail contact for network [NOC@] and abuse [Abuse@] contact. % >Make it standard. and this will be more useful than the currently required postmaster and root accounts -how-?
Not my proposal btw - I'm just forwarding it.
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.
A forlorn hope, I fear - given the state several networks are in :(
Yeah I know it is dumb - and I didn't draft it, just forwarded it.couple of issues with this. ) many delegations predate RIR creation. there is -no- ) RIRs don;t route. ISPs do. "Terminated" IP ranges don't make sense here.
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.
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 / detailed manner than the stuff above) want something on the lines of a credit bureau for ISPs, maintaining histories of potential customers. After all, if CC companies can (under heavy regulation) track deadbeat debtors, there is no particular reason why spammers can't be tracked either.This one is so fraught with legal hairballs that it is almost funny. If you are in the US, can you say RICO... sure you can. In europe, I think EC privacy
There is, for example, the ROKSO at http://sbl.spamhaus.org - but that doesn't even come close to what is being suggested here.
srs (postmaster|suresh)@outblaze.com // gpg : 420776FC
outblaze.com postmaster & messaging systems specialist