[ppml] Abstract of proposed Internet Draft for Best Current Practice (please comment)
Dr. Jeffrey Race
jrace at attglobal.net
Thu Feb 20 00:07:50 EST 2003
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:14:40 +1000, Keith Talent wrote:
>And what happens to all the non-spamming customers of an ISP who has their
addresses revoked on the basis that a another customer spams? Will each of those
innocent customers have a potential lawsuit?
Extract from <www.camblab.com/nugget/spam_03.pdf>
"Even the best ISPs (including my own, AT&T) occasionally fall afoul of
blocklists, but they cure the problem fast. Indeed it is almost comical how
fast spamming stops when a blocklist is used, or even just threatened.
Consider the case of Connect, one of Australia's largest ISPs, which long
harbored a notorious spammer. At 10:00 a.m. on January 3 a group of
concerned system administrators finally tired of politely asking Connect
to shape up and instead laid down their new zero-tolerance policy: blocking
would ensue that day unless Connect disconnected the spammers on its network.
By 1:30 p.m. the spammers were gone, with no interruption in service.
Merely the threat of disconnection from the Internet caused management to
pull up its socks.
A similar incident occurred in late September in Australia when Optus
defiantly refused to cut spammers loose. Blocklist adoption by an
important group of victims forced Optus to change its policy two days later.
In an equally dramatic incident Earthlink, an American ISP not famous for
cracking down on spammers, was forced to sue abusers, stating in its
pleading that it finally had to act because blocklists jeopardized its
Internet connectivity. Before the blocklists Earthlink was content to
let injury accrue to the victims on other networks; after the blocklists
began to bite, Earthlink was motivated to put its own house in order due
to the magic of "actions have consequences"."
More information about the ARIN-PPML