[67358] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: abusereporting (was Re: Monumentous task of making a list)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Sun Feb 8 22:04:54 2004
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 08 Feb 2004 10:43:11 +0100."
<Pine.LNX.4.44.0402081037470.7997-100000@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:08:29 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402081037470.7997-100000@uplift.swm.pp.se>, Mikael A
brahamsson writes:
>
>On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
>> The problem with trojans etc is that there so damn many of them, so the
>> less time spent actually tracking down the user who was on IP X at time
>> Y, the better it is for the ISP's staffers who handle complaints about
>> these.
>
>I have asked about this before. Wouldnt it be very nice if there was a
>standardized way to report IP-number and timestamp and type of complaint?
>
I'm very concerned about the authorization problem -- do you define
"abuse" the same was as the reporter? There was an AP wire story a few
days ago on how the Chinese government is trying to crack down on junk
email because of
many which were
pornographic or reactionary, or promoted gambling or spread computer
viruses,'' the official Xinhua News Agency said, citing the China
Police Daily.
To me, "reactionary" email isn't cause for a report. But it is to some
governments.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
