mailing list archives
Re: SPAM Level Status - And why not stop the peering with lame ISPs
From: Alain Hebert <ahebert () pubnix net>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:21:49 -0500
Yes, those are already in place and do a really good job (about 40%
from the daily stats).
Another 40% get caught by razor, pyzor, our own local spam election
database and spamassassin. (less than 1% are viruses)
Its the other 20% which is buggin the hell of our clients...
(Mostly New spam format and the dynamic spam with generated images)
I think its more a responsability problem than a technology one.
All our clients sign a U]sage A]cceptable U]se P]olicy. Anybody
caught spamming, spam advertising, warezing, illegal downloaded (when
BayTSP notify us) get a $500 CDN fine (about $1US) or get disconnected.
So we take it seriously (and we applied it at least 15 times last year).
Most ARIN ISP's also take it somewhat seriously (legal issues and
such)... Except for those big ones, big lawyers thrump reality/truth
In summary for now:
The situation is pretty much statu-quo.
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 2/10/06, Alain Hebert <ahebert () pubnix net> wrote:
For APNIC, we also includes all their peers up-to (if possible) to a
ARIN one. But we only do that on extreme case of network flooding.
(No sense on wasting operator time on spam related incidents)
I agree you have a problem there - but try using something like
spamhaus.org's sbl and xbl first. And then a few other well chosen
blocklists (not the "block all traffic from a country" variety at all)
You wont get any productive results from blocking apnic space the way you do.
Alain Hebert ahebert () pubnix net
P.O. Box 175 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 5T7
tel 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net fax 514-990-9443
Re: SPAM Level Status - And why not stop the peering with lame ISPs Charles Cala (Feb 10)