Subject: Re: Apology Re: Principles of Spam-abatement

From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:15:37 +0700

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:26:13 -0500 (EST), Dean Anderson wrote:
>However, I think there are things that show some promise that might be
>harder to adapt to, such as automated text summarization, bayesian
>filters, mail agents that filter on the user's interest in the message
>subject, and such.

How about "You are a polluter, your connectivity has terminated, you
are on a customer blacklist, and you will never get connectivity from
us again"?  Spammers would have a little trouble adapting to that.

>I think these are worth pursuing, but these are not
>subjects for the IETF. 

IETF's documenting that this is the behavior expected of any firm offering
connectivity is certainly within the IETF's purview.  And it would have
a dramatic effect.  (Partly because of norms; partly, at least in the
U.S., because it would expose pollution-enabling ISPs to heavy-duty
legal liabilities.  Stockholders would get after their boards.)

Jeffrey Race

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:43:48 -0500

> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:26:13 -0500 (EST), Dean Anderson wrote:
...
> legal liabilities.  Stockholders would get after their boards.)

So what you are asking for is a BCP, nothing more?

Some of real world examples it can encompass cover:
1. How to properly apply blacklist information on incoming connections.
2. How to report and add entities to blacklists.
3. How to deal with hijacked machines.
4. etc.

Is this correct?

Yakov