Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Contacts
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 05:21:56 -0500 (EST)
>> Why would anyone be annoyed by being asked to behave responsibly?
> There's no way a LIR can ensure that all data is correct 100% of the
> time -
Nor, I think, have any of the proposals required that. Only that when
errors are brought to the attention of the delegating authority, that
they are corrected promptly, or the delegating authority accepts
responsibility for correcting abuse from within the space, or the space
deallocated.
> Commercial relations are not "parent-children" relations, and it's
> not our job to educate our customers in such a way.
No, but it _is_ your job to make sure the address sapce you have been
assigned is not used irresponsibly. If you don't require your
customers to maintain working contacts, you must take on that function
yourself; anything less is irresponsible. (Which was where we came in;
the RIPE NCC as not only being irresponsible in this respect but is
strongly resisting fixing it.)
> Mandating a 100% correct RIPE database means LOTS of additional
> operational cost, for a doubtful benefit.
Again, nobody expects 100% correct. Only that errors get corrected
promptly, when brought to the attention of the delegating authority.
> This isn't going to *stop* SPAM,
Of course not. This has nothing to do with spam (and even less to do
with SPAM), except that spam was the form of abuse that got me into it
(by bringing me into contact with a netblock where RIPE is (or at least
was) ducking its responsibility).
> it just means "you get to hit the people that have had their
> resources stolen by spammers more quickly".
More like "get to call address space owners to account for how their
resources are being used to damage the rest of the net". I don't
expect any provider to be spammer-free. What I *do* want is for
providers to kick spammers off promptly, and there are only a few that
do that. There's a rogue registrar - not just provider, but
*registrar* - up right now whose containing RIPE netblock has been
sitting on their thumbs for well over a year (the first complaint I can
lay ready hand on is dated 2001-08-25). And nobody is willing to call
them to account for hosting a spam-supporter despite repeated
notifications, over a long period, of the problem.
> Your solution requires cooperation from the majority of the LIRs, and
> I know at least one that will object.
So now at least we know _who_ objects to being required to act
responsibly, even if we don't have an answer to _why_ - the closest I
saw to an explanation of why was something I would summarize as "an
exaggeration of your proposal would be more expensive than we happen to
feel like supporting".
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
