Re: [Asrg] Two ways to look at spam

["Alan DeKok" <aland@freeradius.org>]

Paul Judge <paul.judge@ciphertrust.com> wrote:
> It is most desirable to block unwanted traffic as close to the
> source as possible. There is some difficulty in moving the solution
> closer to the source in that you are enforcing a policy for all
> downstream receivers. Careful policy expression helps here.

  I've previously discussed pushing consent upstream, in:

https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg00898.html

  while this works in theory, there are issues with implementation
and use that will make it problematic.  e.g. You tell your upstream
provider to block an ip/mask because it's a spamhaus, and 3 months
later when it's your buddy's company, your upstream provider is
unwilling (or unable) to enfore your change of that consent.

  That is, consent-based systems should be fail-safe.  This probably
means that consent MUST be re-stated after some timeout, otherwise you
will be deemed to implicitely consent to *all* traffic.

  Alan DeKok.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg