Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <51CC5148.902@powerweb.de>, Frank Gadegast <ripe-anti-spam-wg@powerweb.de> wrote:
I personally would start at the other end and force Microsoft legally to only have PCs connected to the Internet that have an AntiVirus solution installed and running ...
There is a simpler solution that nobody ever talks about because it is not politically viable. (Translation: Too many campaign contributors with too much money are against it.)
Ths simple solution is just to withdraw the existing specific exemptions to product liability laws that allow Microsoft and other software vendors to ship dangerous crap to people and yet never get sued for doing so. (This is a special exemption that applies to essentially no other cate- gory of product.)
What about a RIR regulation to ensure that address space is only used for purposes not harming anybody ? That resource holders are responsible for the abuse coming out of their networks ? And a framework to withdraw address space, if there is whatever evidence that the resource holder is not doing enough to stop it ? I think this is the main question in wich direction we all should go after the abuse-c is in place. Its nice, that there will be contact now for every address space, but now we should talk about responsibilies of resource holders and procedures to control them. For a start Im really interested how the current revoking process at RIPE NCC actually looks like and examples how this process was actually used in the past ... I might have missed that, but maybe that was never comunicated to the list in detail. Kind regards, Frank
Regards, rfg