[anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project

--On 6 April 2010 19:26:20 +0200 furio ercolessi <furio+as at spin.it> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 06:52:43PM +0200, Jogi Hofm?ller wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 04:45:18PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>>
>> >>>> How can not anybody have an idea, how to solve the problem ?
>> >>>
>> >>> Many people have many ideas, not all of them work.  There remains no
>> >>> silver bullet.  And any recommendation made still needs to be
>> >>> adopted.
>> >>
>> >> I just discribed one arround launch time.
>> >> RIPE should urged all members to stop spam originating from their
>> >> networks.
>>
>> Sure, once we agree on a definition for spam, that COULD work fine.
>
> Is there a disagreement on this point ? I thought it was
> "unsolicited+bulk"  (as in http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html )
> and that this definition was quite universally accepted in the industry.

Not here. The problem with "bulk" is that this can only be determined with 
certainty by the sender. Since "unsolicited" can only be determined with 
certainty by the recipient, "unsolicted bulk" can only be determined with 
co-operation between sender and recipient. The recipient doesn't 
necessarily care about the "bulk" part. The sender, doesn't necessarily 
care about co-operating.

It's also quite difficult to define "bulk" in a way that's robust 
technically and legally. Especially when snow-shoe spammers are using 
templated spam that never looks the same twice.

In UK law, the definition is "unsolicited and marketing". In my view, 
that's a much better definition, provided "marketing" is drawn fairly 
widely - which it is. Both can be determined by the recipient. The problem 
in the UK is enforcement.

> furio
>



-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/

 /\  Document Freedom Day        - Liberate your documents
_\/` http://documentfreedom.org/ - March 31st 2010