[anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alessandro Vesely
vesely at tana.it
Mon Dec 12 17:39:24 CET 2011
That would be fine too. It's far better not to have a "Hacking & Spamming" section [1] in the FAQ than having wrong entries. Is it possible to remove it? [1] http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/faq/faq-hacking-spamming thanks On 12/Dec/11 16:14, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: > +1 > > On 12 Dec 2011, at 09:47, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> It is a FAQ, not an advocacy portal. >> >> Simply link to the MAAWG best practices document - there's several >> available for providers, end users etc. >> >> Tryign to define spam and write faqs on spam ends up as a hair >> splitting discussion, so I'd rather not have it here or reinvent >> multiple of maawg's wheels. >> >> thank you >> srs >> >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely at tana.it> wrote: >>> All, >>> some of the replies to spam FAQs are bad. >>> >>> FAQ#1 (What is spam?) looks good enough to me. So I'd start with >>> FAQ#2 that Leo brought up recently >>> >>> On 01/Dec/11 16:27, Leo Vegoda wrote: >>>> Hi Tobias, You wrote: >>>> >>>>> The naive user should use the abuse finder tool which is already >>>>> in place and would run much easier than today >>>> >>>> I disagree and I support the RIPE NCC's answer in its abuse FAQ: >>>> >>>> http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/faq/faq-hacking-spamming/should-i-just-ignore-spam >>> >>> I too disagree with Tobias' statement, at least for some values of >>> "naive user". Nevertheless, that FAQ's answer is bad. It reads: >>> >>> Should I just ignore spam? >>> >>> Yes. We recommend that you simply ignore and delete any spam >>> emails you get. Spam is a universal problem and there is not much >>> that can be done to stop it. However, if you do want to try to >>> find out where the spam is originating from you can follow the >>> steps in FAQ 5. >>> >>> I propose the following replacement text: >>> >>> Should I just ignore spam? >>> >>> Your mailbox provider may equip you with some means to report >>> spam. If you can conveniently deploy such means using your >>> preferred email client, please do so. Otherwise, we recommend >>> that you simply ignore and delete any spam emails you get. Your >>> email client may provide you with filters to do so automatically. >>> >>> Spam is a social problem, not a technical one. Therefore, >>> technical remedies tend to get rather complicated. If you are a >>> mailbox provider or want to learn more about how to find out where >>> the spam is originating from, you can follow the steps in the FAQ >>> entry "How can I counter spam?" >>> >>> Please note that FAQ#5 currently asks "What can I do to stop spam >>> emails?" Since FAQ entries are not numbered, referring to "FAQ 5" is >>> ambiguous, so I quoted its text, and changed the question while at it. >>> FAQ#5 needs an even deeper revision, but please let's tackle them one >>> at a time. >>> >>> Does everyone agree with the replacement text for FAQ#2? >>> >>>> The overwhelming majority of abuse is perpetrated by skilled >>>> professionals who work hard to hide their tracks. Telling ordinary >>>> Internet users that they have a useful role in identifying abuse >>>> sources and reporting them to the hosting networks is a cruel lie. >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>>> The scale of the problem requires large scale sampling and >>>> statistical analysis rather than individual reports. >>> >>> In part agreed. Individual reports are useful because humans can >>> complement automated filters in detecting spam, albeit both make >>> errors. At any rate, I agree individual reports are to be collected. >>> That's why I'm proposing to amend that entry. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com) >> > > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection > ICANN Accredited Registrar > http://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.mobi/ > http://mneylon.tel > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > US: 213-233-1612 > UK: 0844 484 9361 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]