Need Contact at RoadRunner

Michael.Dillon at Michael.Dillon at
Mon Dec 8 10:16:49 UTC 2003

>Unless you like playing whack-a-mole, you need a smarter hammer, not a
>bigger one.

Email peering *IS* a smarter hammer. If all the cluefull email
administrators would set up peering agreements with each other
and exchange contact information, there would be fewer of these
situations. Part of the problem is that there are no agreed
rules of engagement for email abuse issues. By setting up email
peering agreements in advance, we could put those rules of
engagement in place and we could ensure that our email peers
have the *RIGHT* contact information. 

Domain registry whois listings and INOC-DBA are not the right 
contact information because they are too general. Now, an email
peering agreement could very well specify that certain whois
contact listings should be used as a second resort and that
agreement would make them the right contact info. Also, the
email peering agreement could specify that INOC-DBA phone number
ASNUM*999 is the number one choice of contact method and then it
would become the right way to contact email peers. 

The fundamental problem is not that there isn't technology in 
place to solve these problems; it is that there aren't *AGREEMENTS*
in place to solve these problems. Organizations like CAUCE are
happy to just bitch and moan instead of working to bring all
email operators together to set up working agreements for
*MANAGING* the email abuse problems instead of always letting
the abusers take the first steps and drive the whole issue.

Anyone for a joint NANOG/CAUCE meeting?

In fact, given the past experience with two joint ARIN/NANOG meetings
could the best way forward be to have more joint meetings that
combine a NANOG meeting with some other non-BGP/routing operational
forum? Perhaps something jointly with a security organization
like CIS?


--Michael Dillon

More information about the NANOG mailing list