Subject: Re: [Sipping] Edge Proxy Informational Draft

From: Richard Fogel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:27:00 -0500

In general voice
spam is tougher since there is not a lot of content on which to filter
as in email, in which you can look for specific words. IM spam over SIP
is easier to tackle since there is more content such as a Subject and
possibly multiple SDP sections. However in voice SIP, you can filter on
rules based on how often a message has been sent from a given sender
(by IP and/or SIP uri) within a given timespan, or query on how often
the same message has been seen by other SIP servers.

While voice spamming is not currently prevalent, it needs to be
addressed now before it becomes a plague similar to email's spam. From
a carrier perspective, it is more effective to stop spam at the
perimiter rather than passing it on to their subscribers.

Arjun Roychowdhury wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:02:22 -0500, Richard Fogel <[email-masked]> wrote:
spam is such a

serious threat (as described by Rosenberg et al. in draft "SIP and Spam")
that it must be checked now. Malformed messages must be checked at the
perimiter as they can crash

How does one actually check for voice spam ? The draft you mention
highlights the problems and certain mechanisms as well as highlights
the fact that voice spam filtering is a harder problem than email spam
filtering. Also, I have not yet seen voice spamming in live networks,
so not sure if you are indicating its a reality today that takes more
precedence than the other SBC functions listed.

regds
arjun

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP