The Chair announced that he would be stepping down from the position,
and if the WG is to continue to exist it will require a new Chair (and
possibly Co-chair). The Chair noted that it would also be a good time
to re-evaluate the purpose of the WG; and these two questions were the
priority items for this meeting.
The Chair placed this WG in the context of other anti-spam activity.
Roland Perry of the RIPE NCC commented that the IGF and MAAWG focus
largely on legitimate marketers (preventing spam from identifiable,
conscientious companies, not all the other spam). Too many discussions
about spam get bogged down in the distinction between legitimate
marketers and the other 99% who are not legitimate. The Chair
mentioned that there are two classes of big players; those with many
destination e-mail addresses, and those who have many messages to send,
which are not necessarily unreasonable; and these often get lumped in
with spam. Perhaps it needs a different name.
The Chair identified several possibilities for the WG, one of which
was to adjust its scope. Roland Perry of the RIPE NCC noted that there
are now areas (in London, specifically) where Bluetooth-enabled mobile
phones will receive unsolicited marketing messages. Under EU legal
guidelines, this is regarded as e-mail. He suggested that perhaps the
WG focus should shift to unsolicited messaging of all kinds.
The Chair listed several serious questions on a wider scale affecting
the choices for the WG. For example, is spam a solved problem? Has
e-mail had its day?
There was no consensus that the spam problem is already solved. While
there may be solutions that are sufficient for some people, this is a
temporary state, and there will be new generations of spam, whether it
be Bluetooth, or circumventing the current filters.
One person commented that the age of e-mail and electronic messaging is
nowhere near past. Another, that the age of e-mail will be over if we
do not solve the problems, that we are at the top of a slippery slope,
and that the trade-off between usefulness and annoyance is shifting
against e-mail. He also noted though, that it remains very useful; and
went on to identify a way forward for the WG as a force for the
mitigation of resource abuse. Just as other WGs deal with parts of
what RIPE is, perhaps this should be a WG to deal with the abuse of
the resources handled by RIPE. This is a step away from any narrow
definition of spam, and could include IP, naming, bandwidth and all
the other resources with which RIPE is associated. It is important as
other bodies, such as IANA, ICANN, look to organisations like RIPE for
some sort of lead on issues like this.
There is already an Anti-Spoofing TF, and it was suggested that that
the objectives of the two groups may now be close enough to warrant
merging them. The Chair noted that there is obviously some overlap
with the Anti-Spoofing TF, though they have a relatively specific,
concrete goal, and after achieving this, the TF will close down.
Each of us has our own favourite anti-spam methods, and this WG is a
means of building consensus. The RIPE community has already identified
consensus in some areas of best practice, and a lack of consensus on
other areas; this in itself is a potentially useful function of the
WG. Even if there was no desire to remain active, it might be worth
maintaining an identity for the WG in abeyance.
The Chair put it to the group whether it was the moment for a radical
change and there was no support for such an option or for closing the
group.
The Chair asked about changing the scope of the group, and there were
a number of comments.
This is an opportunity for broadening the focus to look at messaging
abuse and other forms of abuse that were not thought of when the group
was set up. It could also look more at training and advice areas,
broaden those and possibly talk to the NCC about activities at
regional meetings with new LIRs, so that from early on they get the
anti-abuse message and some feeling for the community consensus on how
to act. Looking at all abuse on the network would be too unfocused
though; it is important to focus only on a subset of the resources.
The phrase "the proper way to act" nicely encapsulates what RIPE and
its associates are doing. This commenter was not convinced that there
is an overlap between the WG, dealing with the origination,and the TF
dealing with the destination.
90% of all e-mail is now spam. Do you just protect the inbox, or can
we say we have ten times more e-mail bandwidth than we need? The Chair
questioned whether bandwidth for e-mail alone is a scarce resource, but
agreed that the volume of spam and abuse continues to push up the cost
of servers and support. End users have learned to some extent to live
with spam and the problems caused by it including waste of their own
human resource, though it is unclear that the human resource is within
the purview of the WG.
The Chair explained that there were known to be two people already
interested in taking over the duties of Chair of the WG, and asked for
any other volunteers. There was a comment that it was good to have two
people acting as co-chairs, as this would mean that there was a
back-up in case one of them couldn't attend a RIPE Meeting; but no
further offers.
Nigel Titley of the RIPE NCC Board noted that the WG Chairs
collectively would almost certainly accept the nominations of the WG
itself. He also noted that the process gone through was sufficient,
and that the internal affairs of the WG were essentially up to
themselves.
With the consent of the WG the retiring Chair nominated Brian Nisbet
as Chair and Richard Cox as Co-chair.
you are here: RIPE -> RIPE Working Groups -> Anti Spam
