[anti-abuse-wg] OECD report on SPAM
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] OECD report on SPAM
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] OECD report on SPAM
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
michele at blacknight.ie
Mon Nov 22 12:28:42 CET 2010
It's not within RIPE NCC's remit afaik Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://Blacknight.tel Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity On 22 Nov 2010, at 11:22, "julien tayon" <jul at julbox.net> wrote: > Hello, > > http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?cote=dsti/doc%282010%295&doclanguage=en > > In short, in this long report, abuse handling is pinpointed as essential in cutting off spam & crimes (there are no cyber crimes, only crimes imho). Sounds like trivial to me, but who knows ? > > I guess some pressure is directed from OECD to RIR for an «improved» abuse handling :) This may be the LEA pressure we heard of on this list sooner and the reason it came back to life after years of sleeping. :P > > Since there is a bimodal distribution with very few ISP (50) accounting for 30% of spam and they suggest to target legitimate ISP. > > Europa (RIPE region) seems to be the region with the most infected big ISP (which is not correlated with volume)... > > * making the asumption that these 50 ISP have a poor abuse handling ; > * remembering that RIPE IP handling is linked to the respect of the procedure and the quality (contractually) ; > * observing that RIPE region is one of the most infected ; > My question is : does RIPE have a responsability in this topic by not enforcing the «we shall not give you new IP» rules when ISP failed to handle their abuse ? > > sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] OECD report on SPAM
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] OECD report on SPAM
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]