You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)

  • To: "anti-spam-wg@localhost" < >
  • From: < >
  • Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:08:27 +0000 (GMT)

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Anne Marcel Roorda wrote:

>   I agree that local blacklists will allways be a problem, but having RIPE
> (or someone else) enforce a general AUP will not change that.

While it won't stop them altogether, it will reduce the need for (and
popularity of) separate blacklists.  Surely co-ordination would a good

>   There will allways be a certain amount of time between recognising a
> SPAM operator, and enforcing the AUP. So even though the AUP is enforced,
> the IP numbers may still end up in an unmaintained blacklist.

That's why it's important to have set response times that can be
realistically achieved.  That way LIRs can filter locally if they need to
in the short term, then remove the filtering once the spammers have
stopped or been blacklisted.

>   Educating admins on how to maintain a blacklist if they so choose
> would be a better sollution. Getting them to drop the local blacklist
> and move to one of the several publicly available blacklists would be
> even better.

Exactly.  I can't think of any organisation I'd trust more to run a
blacklist than RIPE.


  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>