[101587] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Sun Jan 13 07:44:43 2008
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:13:51 +0530
From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.lists@gmail.com>
To: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0801130103520.29760@clifden.donelan.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jan 13, 2008 12:05 PM, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
> The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.
> There is also ARF: Abuse Feedback Reporting Format from the Mutual
> Internet Practices Assocation.
> Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group has multiple documents.
ARF is the de facto standard, widely deployed, for ISP spam reporting
feedback loops
As for INCH, standards track or not, as much as I keep asking about, I
can find very few instances of CERTs actually using the damned thing.
And quite a few feeds dont appear to provide "take" in INCH format.
> And then there are various one-shot things produced by many groups such as
> the OECD, ASTA, FTC, NASD, etc.
The only relevant one I remember that the OECD did, in the context of
their spam toolkit, was an earlier version of the MAAWG sender best
practices documents, developed by MAAWG jointly with OECD's business
constituency BIAC. Newer versions of the sender bcp (which is bcp for
legit bulk mailers) have since been published on the MAAWG website.
The ASTA docs became the MAAWG best practices, more or less ..pretty
much the same crowd behind both (large ISPs + email providers). And
most of that lot is not reporting standards or formats, it is best
practices for abuse handling / legit email marketing etc.
--srs
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
