Re: de-peering for security sake

[TR Shaw <tshaw () oitc com>]

ARF (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5965.txt <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5965.txt>, 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6650.txt) and X-ARF (http://www.x-arf.org/index.html 
<http://www.x-arf.org/index.html>) are used quite alot and many, like Yahoo, only accept ARF reports on abusive emails.

you might want to read MAAWG’s BCP: 
https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/document/M3AAWG_Feedback_Reporting_Recommendation_BP-2014-02.pdf 
<https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/document/M3AAWG_Feedback_Reporting_Recommendation_BP-2014-02.pdf>

Tom

> On Dec 25, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Clayton Zekelman <clayton () mnsi net> wrote:
>
> Just an off the cuff thought but if the format of the abuse messages could be standardized so handling them would be 
> semi-automated somewhat like ACNS notices, it might improve response.
>
> Maybe such a format already exists and just isn't widely used.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Dec 25, 2015, at 4:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015, Colin Johnston wrote:
> > >
> > > why do the chinese network folks never reply and action abuse reports, normal slow speed network abuse is 
> > > tolerated, but not high speed deliberate abuse albeit compromised machines
> >
> > This is not a chinese problem, this is a general ISP problem. Most ISPs do not respond to abuse reports.
> >
> > -- 
> > Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike () swm pp se