Re: [Rucus] Operator-assisted SPIT filtering (was Re: SPIT fromoperator)

"Avasarala Ranjit-A20990" <ranjit@motorola.com> Thu, 09 July 2009 12:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ranjit@motorola.com>
X-Original-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rucus@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4964828C1CF for <rucus@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 05:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8b8UHZ-XOlR4 for <rucus@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 05:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail128.messagelabs.com (mail128.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A4E28C1A9 for <rucus@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 05:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: ranjit@motorola.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-128.messagelabs.com!1247141048!19864910!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8]
Received: (qmail 7821 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2009 12:04:08 -0000
Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-9.tower-128.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 9 Jul 2009 12:04:08 -0000
Received: from il06exr03.mot.com (il06exr03.mot.com [129.188.137.133]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n69C478v017422 for <rucus@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 05:04:07 -0700 (MST)
Received: from il06vts01.mot.com (il06vts01.mot.com [129.188.137.141]) by il06exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id n69C47tE006623 for <rucus@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 07:04:07 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ZMY16EXM66.ds.mot.com (zmy16exm66.ap.mot.com [10.179.4.26]) by il06exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id n69C46Ls006614 for <rucus@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 07:04:06 -0500 (CDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:03:43 +0800
Message-ID: <750BBC72E178114F9DC4872EBFF29A5B07DACF64@ZMY16EXM66.ds.mot.com>
In-Reply-To: <18a603a60907090500k4cf6f75eu7627bc680b3138e2@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Rucus] Operator-assisted SPIT filtering (was Re: SPIT fromoperator)
Thread-Index: AcoAjOXyznYyUIi/R3225hp4aPFu2AAADoYA
References: <18a603a60907090441u4d68d0f3x6aa72177811b4b6c@mail.gmail.com><6EA53FAD386F9D46B97D49BFE148D5148CE25B@ISR-JLM-MAIL1.xconnect.co.il> <18a603a60907090500k4cf6f75eu7627bc680b3138e2@mail.gmail.com>
From: Avasarala Ranjit-A20990 <ranjit@motorola.com>
To: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>, David Schwartz <dschwartz@xconnect.net>
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: Rucus BoF <rucus@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Rucus] Operator-assisted SPIT filtering (was Re: SPIT fromoperator)
X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" <rucus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus>, <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rucus>
List-Post: <mailto:rucus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus>, <mailto:rucus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:03:42 -0000

True. That is the reason why an Operator cannot mark any caller or call
as spam. Only the target users can mark a particular caller or a call as
unwanted or malicious and may want to block the caller from further
calling. 

Regards
Ranjit

-----Original Message-----
From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Pars Mutaf
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:31 PM
To: David Schwartz
Cc: Rucus BoF
Subject: Re: [Rucus] Operator-assisted SPIT filtering (was Re: SPIT
fromoperator)

Hello,

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:49 PM, David Schwartz<dschwartz@xconnect.net>
wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>> What is the advantage of operator marking and forwarding the message,

>> over the cell phone marking the message and storing marked as SPIT?
>
> The operator has much more information to base a decision on
(including input he gets from the endpoint) than the endpoint has.
> The operator can "share" information better with other users
(including ones who did not actually mark the particular caller) as
well. > Email systems have been doing this for years where a spam
indication by one of its members is propagated to others.

Is there any reference for this? (if not too difficult to find any).
In my view, there may exist messages marked as spam by one user, that
may not be considered as spam by other users.
I mean, users may have different spam criteria.

In any case I would suggest that these points be clarified. They don't
seem obvious to me.

Thanks,

pars

>
>> Perhaps the operator would have more information about SPITers and 
>> can perform better filtering on behalf of users? (I'm not sure about 
>> that). This could be clarified?
>
> My point is, that regardless of the actual SPAM indication harvesting
technique (e.g. the receiving user "blocked" the call), without the
ability to warn others as well the information is of limited value -
hence my reference to the Wing draft.
>
>> Or it is an energy conservation issue?
>
> :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> pars
>
>
_______________________________________________
Rucus mailing list
Rucus@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus