[ppml] Policy Proposal: Modification to Reverse Mapping Policy

[James Hess]

On 9/14/07, michael.dillon at bt.com <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
>
> ARIN is fully justified in providing number allocations and in-addr.arpa
> services to spammers since nothing in ARIN policy give ARIN the right to
> refuse such services. In fact, ARIN policy does not allow ARIN to
> consider business models at all.

I think we should recognize that this is totally different from the situation
with spam, just like putting advertising on your website or your FTP server
is not like spam.

Because noone forces anyone to try to reverse lookup their IP address
-- if you attempt a reverse lookup, then it's because you took some manual
action, or you have setup software on your  equipment that is
automatically attempts reverse lookups on the DNS.


You've gone out to their address block's DNS servers and made a
request. This is different from the situation with spam, where a spammer
connects to your mail server and gives you a big message you didn't want or
ask for; it is actually the content of the message and the list of
recipients that
is what makes a spammer (not the remote connection to a publicly bound service).


I hope ARIN doesn't consider it required to give everyone everything they need
based on business model.

I would hope that ARIN would not go out of their way to give spammers
everything the spammers can justify based on their business model,
being totally non-judgemental.

In particular, that ARIN would not give spammers new allocations
based on the justification of the need to evade IP-based blocklists on
the prior IP range.

Essentially, I think spammers would love to get additional blocks of IPs every
couple weeks, once all the blacklists out there have fully included
the old range
and if spammers could do what they want would probably return the old range to
ARIN, in exchange for a new one,  since it being widely blocked makes it
useless for spamming.

That's exactly the sort of "help" ARIN should watch out for and refuse, IMO.
With some care, since spammers might not admit the real reasons they want
to do strange stuff.


--
-J