nanog mailing list archives
Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:34:53 -0500
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 01:58:47AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
The ARIN meetings (at least) are open, please come and help guide policies. I'm sure RIPE also wouldn't mind a discussion, if there could be some positive policy outcome.
Why should I or anyone else do that? It will cost us, personally, a great deal of time and money and hassle and -- as far as I can tell -- will achieve nothing. Let me explain why I say that. The senior people working in the anti-abuse area aren't hard to find. We hang out on spam-l, or funsec, or in various blogs, and we publish comments/reports/essays pointing out what we observe. (Well, at least some of it. I've learned to keep much of what I find back, as it often reveals too much about my methods. And there's been retaliation from time to time, some of it disruptive and expensive.) If ARIN and/or RIPE and/or ICANN and/or anyone else were truly interested in making a dent in the problem, then they would have already paid attention to our collective work product. And they would have already blacklisted certain individuals/organizations -- permanently -- and revoked all their resources. (I trust everyone is painfully aware than all lesser steps have already failed miserably and will of course fail miserably in the future. This is not a set of problems that can be addressed with half-measures: those are really not worth anyone's time or effort. Even the approach I'm suggesting may well not be sufficient, but it's clearly necessary.) I see no sign that these organizations are taking any such measures, nor any sign that they're even open to the possibility of doing so. Yet this is what must be done if any substantial impact is to be achieved. Bad actors have quite thoroughly gamed the system and have long since provided overwhelming proof that while their tactics may change, their strategy will always be to profit by as much abuse they can possibly manage. They'll never stop, they'll only adapt as old methods cease to work and new ones become available; it's their "career". The only recourse we have is to cut them off for life. ---Rsk
Current thread:
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure, (continued)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Christopher Morrow (Dec 22)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Paul Ferguson (Dec 22)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Christopher Morrow (Dec 22)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Paul Ferguson (Dec 22)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Rich Kulawiec (Dec 23)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Joel Jaeggli (Dec 23)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure J.D. Falk (Dec 23)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure O'Reirdan, Michael (Dec 23)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Jon Lewis (Dec 24)
- RE: Article on spammers and their infrastructure O'Reirdan, Michael (Dec 25)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Rich Kulawiec (Dec 30)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Randy Bush (Dec 30)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Jorge Amodio (Dec 30)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Paul Vixie (Dec 30)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Fred Baker (Dec 30)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Eric Brunner-Williams (Dec 31)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Barry Shein (Dec 31)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Paul Timmins (Dec 31)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure David Conrad (Dec 31)
- RE: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Alex Lanstein (Dec 31)
- Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure Jorge Amodio (Dec 31)