Re: Commecial vs fairness (was: spam support)
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 16:58:15 +0100
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 04:00:19PM +0100, Anne Marcel Roorda wrote:
> Do you report all IP numbers put into the local blacklist to one
> or more public blacklists?
We are talking about actual spam sources here: we submit all
open relays/open proxies/dialups we run into to public blacklists
and they do not go into the local blacklist.
The answer is no: I do not have enough time for that.
I report the most blatant cases when I have time to do so and
feel it to be worthwhile. The process is definitely more
rewarding for SBL than for RBL...
We report 100% of the incoming spam that we receive, or brought
to our attention by our users. Everything reported, no exceptions.
We archive all our spam reports in public places: n.a.n-a.s. for
international spams and http://www.nic.it/RA/servizi/listserv/abuse.html
for italian spam (incidentally, do other european countries have
> Do you check the local blacklist, and remove any overlap with
> public blacklists?
Before insertion we check that the IPs are not already in a public
blacklist. We do not check for overlaps later on, although I agree
that it could be a good idea (it can be done automatically) and I
will think about doing it.
> > In my opinion the "radioactivity" issue should be somehow addressed
> > by RIPE (and of course also ARIN and APNIC): after all, by
> > reassigning a block previously used by a spammer they are
> > delivering deteriorated goods :-)
> RIPE makes no claims of usability for any of the IP ranges they
> give out. The only claim that is made, is that the IP range is
> globally unique.
Of course. What I wanted to mean is not "RIPE NCC is supposed to
give out usable IP blocks", but "in the current status of affairs, the
system may have some global benefits if the regulations were
modified so as to consider this problem, and decrease the
likelihood of assigning a deteriorated block to some poor fellow".