[anti-abuse-wg] Enabling community self-help?
Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.lists at gmail.com
Fri Apr 6 05:37:05 CEST 2012
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote: > It might be a failure of imagination on my part, but I think that > attempting to prevent "bad guys" from getting addresses involves extra > work to prove somehow that they companies not criminal. I don't see a > lot of call by LIRs to increase the amount of paperwork and delay when > dealing with the RIPE NCC. :) Did you calculate just how much expense your colleagues in another department (security or spam filtering or whatever) face because you can't collectively be bothered to do some paperwork, and/or RIPE NCC can't be bothered to streamline and automate their processes? > Does ROKSO cover any issue, or just spam? Certainly there is nothing > preventing anyone who can afford a VPS from setting up some reputation > site, but if it was RIPE NCC-hosted it might have a different level of > gravitas. It covers groups or people that have a long history of spam and termination from at least three service providers for violation of their policies. But the word "spam" - and so the category of people listed in ROKSO - covers everything from unsolicited marketing of mail order junk (borderline fraud at worst), to criminals involved in credit card theft and child pornography. As for "reputation" wrt spam - I would take spamhaus' word for this over the word of any organization or community that is "not the document police". You see, if you are not the document police and then go around publishing something about a netblock's reputation being bad or fishy .. well then, you have published that based on very little actual fact available to you. So why would I or anybody else value it for more than the paper (or sectors on a hard disk) it is written on? --srs