<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 11:47 18 02 03 Tuesday, you wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Brian S.
Bergin wrote:<br><br>
> >Your original post (possibly the first bullet point) suggested
that ISPs<br>
> >*prevent* this type of abuse. What solutions can you offer
that will<br>
> >allow an ISP to prevent spam?<br>
> <br>
> If I might, while I'm new to this list, I deal with the junk
daily. The <br>
> problem is ISPs and individuals buying large blocks of IPs then
reselling <br>
> them to others and then washing their hands of the mess. I can
point you <br><br>
The question isn't one of ISP policy, it's posed from a technical<br>
perspective.<br><br>
I can prevent outbound port 25 from all dialup/dsl/cable except to
my<br>
servers. I can be proactive when handling spam
complaints.</font></blockquote><br>
That's quickly becoming a moot point. There are plenty services
both in and out of North America that allow people to send SMTP traffic
on other than port 25 then they in turn send it out on port 25. As
more and more ISPs block port 25 more and more spammers figure out it's
easy to get around. Blocking 25 isn't the answer. IMHO, the
biggest thing is to clean up the open port 25 relays. We were
required by our backbone providers to show that our mail servers were
secure. Now blocking inbound port 25 from Asia and Eastern Europe
does cut down on spam by 90%. I know, we've tried it...<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=3>But how do I *prevent*
spam?<br><br>
> As for the vocal anti-spammers not agreeing on what constitutes UE,
I <br>
> disagree. UE is any mail sent unsolicited and without the
addressee's <br>
> permission. Furthermore, forged headers or relayed mail is
abusive. Go <br>
> look at the major backbone providers like C&W &
uu.net. Their AUPs are <br>
> quite clear.<br><br>
I find that, to many people, everything constitutes spam. A single
virus<br>
transmission or a typoed email address is justification to submit a
report<br>
to any and every one that will listen.</font></blockquote><br>
No. Most AUPs have something to the effect of "if it could
reasonability be considered to result in complaints". Every
spammer knows what s/he is doing. A cut-and-dry limit could be
set. x number of complaints generates a contact e-mail to the admin
& tech contacts (if they're bounced as undeliverable the account is
suspended). x number of additional complaints generates a x-hour
suspension of IPs. x number more and the account is off for a
month. After that, one more set of complaints and it's off for good
with no refund. <br><br>
Also, a mis-typed e-mail address or virus is not spam by any AUP I've
ever seen although continued unchecked viruses should result in the ISP
suspending the account until it's corrected. Most will do that if
enough complaints come in.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=3>> To top it all
off, many of these blocks, when SWIP'd, contain fraudulent <br>
> information. ICANN will revoke a fraudulent or invalid domain
registration <br>
> why can't ARIN revoke a fraudulent IP SWIP and if the block owner is
found <br>
> to also have fraudulent or invalid registration information they
should <br>
> have their entire block revoked. That's the way the rest of
the world <br>
> works. Do you think the FCC would allow someone to buy a block
of <br>
> frequencies and give them false contact info? The FCC would
yank the <br><br>
This has nothing to do with spam. This is a valid complaint
regardless.</blockquote><br>
You're right; however, ARIN will NOT go after a block of IPs that has
fraudulent info. I have dozens of tickets with them stating they
will not do anything other than list the fact that the info has been
reported as inaccurate. What good does that do. If the state
just issued me informational 'tickets' for violating the speed limit with
no enforcement teeth do you think I'm ever going to slow down?
Until ARIN actually gets some backbone, and I'm not talking about
bandwidth, people will continue to abuse the IP space by committing fraud
to obtain and continue to use them.<br><br>
Honestly I fail to see why there's so much concern about ARIN enforcing
an AUP or no-fraud clauses. If you don't spam and don't host
spammers or if you actually enforce an AUP and remove spammers I can't
see why anyone would be against this. I would think legit ISPs
would welcome the change at the top. It would given them yet
another tool to remove spammers from their network.</font></body>
</html>