[anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Mon Dec 12 15:47:18 CET 2011
It is a FAQ, not an advocacy portal. Simply link to the MAAWG best practices document - there's several available for providers, end users etc. Tryign to define spam and write faqs on spam ends up as a hair splitting discussion, so I'd rather not have it here or reinvent multiple of maawg's wheels. thank you srs On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely at tana.it> wrote: > All, > some of the replies to spam FAQs are bad. > > FAQ#1 (What is spam?) looks good enough to me. So I'd start with > FAQ#2 that Leo brought up recently > > On 01/Dec/11 16:27, Leo Vegoda wrote: >> Hi Tobias, You wrote: >> >>> The naive user should use the abuse finder tool which is already >>> in place and would run much easier than today >> >> I disagree and I support the RIPE NCC's answer in its abuse FAQ: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/faq/faq-hacking-spamming/should-i-just-ignore-spam > > I too disagree with Tobias' statement, at least for some values of > "naive user". Nevertheless, that FAQ's answer is bad. It reads: > > Should I just ignore spam? > > Yes. We recommend that you simply ignore and delete any spam > emails you get. Spam is a universal problem and there is not much > that can be done to stop it. However, if you do want to try to > find out where the spam is originating from you can follow the > steps in FAQ 5. > > I propose the following replacement text: > > Should I just ignore spam? > > Your mailbox provider may equip you with some means to report > spam. If you can conveniently deploy such means using your > preferred email client, please do so. Otherwise, we recommend > that you simply ignore and delete any spam emails you get. Your > email client may provide you with filters to do so automatically. > > Spam is a social problem, not a technical one. Therefore, > technical remedies tend to get rather complicated. If you are a > mailbox provider or want to learn more about how to find out where > the spam is originating from, you can follow the steps in the FAQ > entry "How can I counter spam?" > > Please note that FAQ#5 currently asks "What can I do to stop spam > emails?" Since FAQ entries are not numbered, referring to "FAQ 5" is > ambiguous, so I quoted its text, and changed the question while at it. > FAQ#5 needs an even deeper revision, but please let's tackle them one > at a time. > > Does everyone agree with the replacement text for FAQ#2? > >> The overwhelming majority of abuse is perpetrated by skilled >> professionals who work hard to hide their tracks. Telling ordinary >> Internet users that they have a useful role in identifying abuse >> sources and reporting them to the hosting networks is a cruel lie. > > Agreed. > >> The scale of the problem requires large scale sampling and >> statistical analysis rather than individual reports. > > In part agreed. Individual reports are useful because humans can > complement automated filters in detecting spam, albeit both make > errors. At any rate, I agree individual reports are to be collected. > That's why I'm proposing to amend that entry. > -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]