Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Contacts
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:11:19 +0700
- Priority: Normal
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:55:11 +0100 (MET), Paul Wouters wrote:
>I also strongly dislike the idea of RIPE-NCC (or the RIPE community)
>to gain the power of revoking address space assignments. That should be
>left to the legal system and the authorities. The problem of the
>scattered, one person run, blacklists with dubious, contradicting, or
>secret policies is bad enough as it is without adding another ad-hoc
>organisation policing the flow of packets. What's next? AMSIX deciding
>spam policy on their switches?
>
>You handle abuse by taking out the abuser directly. This is a case that
>should be fought within the legal system, between perpetrator and victim.
For the reasons specified in my proposal, the legal system will never
be able to suppress spam. So forget that.
As for revoking on grounds of abuse what was given on condition of
good behavior, there is no practical problem whatever. Well-run
service providers do this already. My proposal's goal is to elevate
to universal (from random) practice the best practices of the best
current providers.
Jeffrey Race
