[ppml] Abstract of proposed Internet Draft for Best Current Practice (please comment)

J Bacher 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 mailing list