+1
On Saturday, May 10, 2014, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
On 5/10/2014 9:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> That is a hair that need not be split.
>
> The meaning and intent are perfectly clear.
>
> And the meaning of abuse is varied enough, and ever changing, that it
> would not be wise to get bogged down in definitions.
Perhaps small re-wordings, to capture the above, without (intending to)
change the substance of the existing charter:
Draft revision of <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse>
As the Internet has evolved, so has the scope and scale of network
abuse. Unsolicited bulk email (spam) is often merely a symptom of
deeper abuse such as viruses or botnets. Consequently the Anti-Spam
Working Group has a wide scope, to include all relevant kinds of abuse.
The technical details of spam and other abuse constantly vary, in terms
of application channel and technique. Channel examples include SMTP,
SIP, XMPP and HTTP. Examples of techniques range from buffer overrun to
social engineering.
Within scope are all systems and mechanisms, both technical and
non-technical, that are used to create, control and make money from such
abuse.
Outside of scope are areas such as cybersquatting or hosting illegal
content.
The working group considers both technical and non-technical aspects of
abuse, with the following goals:
Produce and continue to update a BCP (Best Common Practice) document
for ISPs similar in nature to RIPE-409 but covering a wider range of
possible abusive behaviours.
Provide advice (beyond that of the BCP) to relevant parties within
the RIPE region such as ISPs, Governments and Law Enforcement Agencies
on strategic and operational matters.
Discuss and disseminate information on technical and non-technical
methods of preventing or reducing network abuse.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
--srs (iPad)