<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

RIPE BCP for combating UBE - Feedback

  • To: "'webmaster@localhost" < >
  • From: "Hart, Andrew" < >
  • Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:18:45 -0800
  • Cc: "'webmaster@localhost" < >

Ripe Webmaster -

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-206.html

I read through this excellent BCP and have added the URL 
to my own Abuse Complaint template for ISP's to reference.

I'm not sure if it is a difference between Queen's English <g> 
and the state's use of the Websters Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com, 
but I found some corrections I would like to recommend.

These are the few words that stuck out, there may be others, 
but I'm really not trying to nit-pick, just wondering if anyone 
else noticed.

Throughout the Document
behaviour vs behavior 

m-w: Main Entry: be7hav7iour
chiefly British variant of BEHAVIOR 

End of section 5. Act upon reports of abuse
on the "first offence"
If a "second offence"  

m-w: Main Entry: of7fense
Variant(s): or of7fence

Section 6. Disseminate information...

favourably vs favorably


Lastly - I do want to comment on a bullet point of section 5. Act upon
reports of abuse

> Was there a way of "opting out" from receiving email?

The majority of anti-spam advocates would prefer to see opt-in practices...

It is generally been proven that REMOVE@localhost doesn't work and 
even referring a victim to some legitimate website to "unsubscribe",  
has been questionable (DMA/Remove-it.com).  
Commonly, the replies are used to verify real addresses vs bounces and 
subsequently may end-up on some BULK EMAIL CDRom lists which 
further propagates the problem.

Another situation arises when a Mail Relay and a target Webpage are serviced
by different ISPs.  I have had Abuse replies returned, as you recommend, but

a blanket statement that since the message header reflected that the UBE
didn't pass through their network - there was no violation of "their" posted

Terms of Service/AUP.  Many MAJOR backbones display a Zero-Tolerence
policy and do hold their downstreams responsible for their clients, but few
have gained a positive reputation that they can enforce their own policy.

My own experience is while a spammer is kicked for abuse, their 
webpage may still be live and well.  http://spamhaus.org

The quandry with hotmail, yahoo and similar Freemail services is
an issue of either bogus/forgery Remove@ address or a reaction 
from an ISP to disable an offending email address quickly.  

I don't have a solution to offer, but merely observations.

I am an active member of the SPAM-L mailing list.  
For more information - check their FAQ at:
http://www.claws-and-paws.com/spam-l


=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
J. Andrew Hart 
Franklin Templeton Funds
(650) 312-3956
>  
Chasing pickle's Sopwith while flying around in a Spad.
Back into the top 10 again!
KASA: http://jraxis.kracked.com/spam/main.html







  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>