Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Contacts
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 13:15:29 +0100 (MET)
[Please bear with me: I am quite new to the spam-wg list, too (since
RIPE-43 last September).]
> Thanks for flagging this; I will endeavor to clarify in the next
> draft that I envision cleanup fees (not fines) imposed only
> against refractory spammer customers of service providers by
> the service providers themselves. The RIR sanction is simply
> withdrawal of assigned IP address space from anti-social registrants.
> ("Son, if you don't drive responsibly, I'm taking away the car keys".
> This definitely works; every parent understands why and how.)
It is my impression that things get more and more intermixed here and
beyond what der Mouse intended in first place. The way I understood
him was not asking that the RIPE penalizes some LIR because of spam.
The question was, paraphrased:
A LIR should be responsible for accurate contact info for both
its customer and itself. A RIR should be able to enforce this.
which would not be spam issue at all but a general lir-wg issue.
The RIPE gives already the possibilty to file external complaints against
LIRs, see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/auditing.html. While this
procedure is mainly concerned about fair address assignments, "database
consistency" is explicitly one of the issues being checked. From
"4.1 Principles":
Database Consistency
1. Is the information stored in the RIPE database concerning
the assignments within Registry's allocation correct (separate
up-to-date entries pointing to all individual customer
assignments)?
I think this answers a few of the previous questions. The penalty for
violations is a lowered assignment window, which should be at least an
quite effective lesson.
Martin
