[anti-abuse-wg] Working group focus
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Working group focus
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kostas Zorbadelos
kzorba at otenet.gr
Tue Aug 17 16:56:15 CEST 2010
On Thursday 08 July 2010 11:16:56 Richard Cox wrote: > Since the AAWG membership elected Brian and myself as co-chairs, we have > been working hard to identify what changes will need to take place for > the RIPE community to become more pro-active in the fight against spam. > Initially we found that there was a need for more (and more complete) > information about the problem. So we have worked to bring to the AAWG > workshops at the RIPE meetings, reports on the present threat level, and > presentations from specialists in the community dealing with particular > aspects of abuse. This alone can be a very good reason to attend RIPE meetings. It is an effort that should be sustained and extended. If worked properly the 2-hour timeslot in the meeting schedule will not be enough I guess :) > This will lay the foundations for what we need to do > next - which I see as falling into two categories: > > (a) major rework on published documents such as RIPE 409 (and possibly > the creation of new documents) to establish what actions are needed > within the community to mitigate the threat from spam and malware. This is an area the WG can do much better I think. For example in my case, information about best current practices in minimizing spam originating from a provider's network was found elsewhere such as the MAAWG [1], ETIS [2] or ENISA [3] and of course various contacts with antispam vendors. > (b) introducing proposals (within the RIPE Policy Development Process) > to make such adjustments as are needed in terms of how the community > should manage its resources and information. I introduced some of > those ideas during the meeting in Prague, hoping for some feedback > from that audience on the relevance and deliverability of the ideas. > Now we need to get started on the formal part of the processes. > > This will be the tricky bit. Almost everyone (except abusers) agrees > that abuse needs to stop - but when it is pointed out that achieving > that would involve changes in how each of them currently operates (and > that in many cases requires resources and expenditure) their enthusiasm > for "stopping spam" tends to rapidly diminish. Yes, this is a problem. However it can be also viewed as a chicken-and-egg problem. If the community produces specific results, corporate managements can be convinced to focus and address the issues with a higher priority. And speaking of managements, education plus having supportive documentation and "pressure" from a respected public community in an area can be of help. > We will have to see just > how willing the RIPE community would be, to make the changes that are > essential in order to reduce the prevalence of abuse. But in terms of > resource abuse it's become clear that the RIPE community is seen as > having rather more issues than any of the other regional communities. > > Let me be clear on one point: there are only two ways to stop spam and > abuse: one is to make the cost and (perceived) risk to anyone sending > spam or committing abuse, exceed the profits/benefits from so doing, > and the other is to switch off the internet. > Of course you are right. Kostas > -- > Richard Cox > The Other Co-chair, RIPE Anti-Abuse WG [1] http://www.maawg.org/ [2] http://www.etis.org/ [3] http://www.enisa.europa.eu/
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Working group focus
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]