RE: [anti-spam-wg] ENISA Study: Industry Measures on Security and Spam

  • To: "'furio ercolessi'" furio+as@localhost
  • From: Jørgen Hovland jorgen@localhost
  • Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 19:22:07 +0200


> -----Original Message-----
> From: anti-spam-wg-admin@localhost [
] On > Behalf Of furio ercolessi > > I am not familiar with current MAPS policy, but I am quite familiar > with the operation of the other two lists, and as fas as I know they do > not allow other entities to turn on listings or even send submissions, > even when the other entities are ISPs asking to list one of their own > customers. > > Also, even if feasible, such an action would probably be more expensive, > in terms of human resources, than acting directly to block the offender > at the source level with technical or policy countermeasures. > And, above all, I can not see the meaning of it: in this scenario > the ISP - the only entity that could stop the abuse at the source - takes > notice of the existence of the spam source, yet, rather than blocking it, > would choose to inform the rest of the world that one of their customer > behaves badly so that abusive traffic can be blocked at the destination? > It does not make sense to me. Also, this practice does not seem > to be a common one, as the 45% figure would suggest. > So I am very surprised by this percentage. > > I have the impression that the 45% of the ISPs that answered in this > way did not understood the question in the same way as I have understood > it. So perhaps I am the one that did not understand the report, or > perhaps there is a mistake in the way the original data have been > summarized in the report? > Hi, When I marked that choice in the survey I assumed the rbls in the parentheses were examples only. We list them in a private list. I am sure around 45% of isps do something like that.