RE: [anti-spam-wg] ENISA Study: Industry Measures on Security and Spam
To: "'furio ercolessi'" furio+as@localhost
From: Jørgen Hovland jorgen@localhost
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 19:22:07 +0200
> -----Original Message-----
> From: anti-spam-wg-admin@localhost [
> Behalf Of furio ercolessi
> I am not familiar with current MAPS policy, but I am quite familiar
> with the operation of the other two lists, and as fas as I know they do
> not allow other entities to turn on listings or even send submissions,
> even when the other entities are ISPs asking to list one of their own
> Also, even if feasible, such an action would probably be more expensive,
> in terms of human resources, than acting directly to block the offender
> at the source level with technical or policy countermeasures.
> And, above all, I can not see the meaning of it: in this scenario
> the ISP - the only entity that could stop the abuse at the source - takes
> notice of the existence of the spam source, yet, rather than blocking it,
> would choose to inform the rest of the world that one of their customer
> behaves badly so that abusive traffic can be blocked at the destination?
> It does not make sense to me. Also, this practice does not seem
> to be a common one, as the 45% figure would suggest.
> So I am very surprised by this percentage.
> I have the impression that the 45% of the ISPs that answered in this
> way did not understood the question in the same way as I have understood
> it. So perhaps I am the one that did not understand the report, or
> perhaps there is a mistake in the way the original data have been
> summarized in the report?
When I marked that choice in the survey I assumed the rbls in the
parentheses were examples only. We list them in a private list. I am sure
around 45% of isps do something like that.