Re: Identifications dealing with Bulk Unsolicited Messages (BUMs)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Feb 22, 2007, at 1:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

The level of bulk unsolicited messages exceed more than 90% of the volume in many cases

I estimate 95% of moderated non-member mail that hits the IESG list to be b.u.m.

Much that slips past somewhat static (and not very effective) lists come from a small percentage of network providers not managing prohibitions of bulk unsolicited messages. On one hand, network provider's revenues depend upon traffic, any traffic. On the other hand are support calls. Effective black-hole operators only deal with network providers. Network providers can stipulate which address ranges are placed on the black-hole operator's policy based lists. When bulk unsolicited messages are detected from sources enabled by the network provider, the network provider is contacted first. Deference is afforded when a network provider responds, where avoiding a listing is truly a shared interest.

Customers of network providers that do not to respond to reports, and that also have a high density of IP addresses emitting bulk unsolicited messages are unfortunately at risk. When a customer becomes listed, the black-hole list operator will likely inform them they must contact their network provider, as the network provider must act on their behalf. It is impossible to develop relationships with billions of network provider's customers, where those wishing to send bulk unsolicited messages are also often less than truthful. Short of making bulk unsolicited messages outright illegal or permitting complete mayhem, the tussle remains between black-hole list operators and network providers, an aggregate of receivers versus an aggregate of transmitters.

Network providers very much desire black-hole operators to automatically delist IP addresses when their customers complain to the black-hole operator. Ongoing efforts in the ASRG voice this desire in a draft aimed at advising black-hole list operators. This draft does not clarify how network providers are identified, or attempt to describe the network provider's role in controlling bulk unsolicited messaging. Ignoring the role of the network provider may be extremely profitable for some, but is also likely to be highly detrimental for the Internet as a whole.

A better way to deal with this problem would be to impose stiff sanctions on network providers who fail to handle reports of bulk unsolicited messages. This will mean they need to deal with fraudulent accounts or block infected computers. Currently, the PITA created by black-hole lists create some financial incentive that restrains BUMs at their current, albeit high, levels. Ignoring the role network providers play in controlling bulk unsolicited messages will likely allow this problem to grow much worse.

-Doug

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]