[ppml] Abstract of proposed Internet Draft for Best Current Practice (please comment)
jb at jbacher.com
Tue Feb 18 11:47:39 EST 2003
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Brian S. Bergin wrote:
> >Your original post (possibly the first bullet point) suggested that ISPs
> >*prevent* this type of abuse. What solutions can you offer that will
> >allow an ISP to prevent spam?
> If I might, while I'm new to this list, I deal with the junk daily. The
> problem is ISPs and individuals buying large blocks of IPs then reselling
> them to others and then washing their hands of the mess. I can point you
The question isn't one of ISP policy, it's posed from a technical
I can prevent outbound port 25 from all dialup/dsl/cable except to my
servers. I can be proactive when handling spam complaints.
But how do I *prevent* spam?
> As for the vocal anti-spammers not agreeing on what constitutes UE, I
> disagree. UE is any mail sent unsolicited and without the addressee's
> permission. Furthermore, forged headers or relayed mail is abusive. Go
> look at the major backbone providers like C&W & uu.net. Their AUPs are
> quite clear.
I find that, to many people, everything constitutes spam. A single virus
transmission or a typoed email address is justification to submit a report
to any and every one that will listen.
> To top it all off, many of these blocks, when SWIP'd, contain fraudulent
> information. ICANN will revoke a fraudulent or invalid domain registration
> why can't ARIN revoke a fraudulent IP SWIP and if the block owner is found
> to also have fraudulent or invalid registration information they should
> have their entire block revoked. That's the way the rest of the world
> works. Do you think the FCC would allow someone to buy a block of
> frequencies and give them false contact info? The FCC would yank the
This has nothing to do with spam. This is a valid complaint regardless.
More information about the ARIN-PPML