[Rucus] SPIT from operator
Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com> Wed, 08 July 2009 15:34 UTC
Return-Path: <pars.mutaf@gmail.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 5E6D13A6B6B for <rucus@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.376
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.223, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Zp4LhHXTnZKS for <rucus@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f226.google.com (mail-ew0-f226.google.com [209.85.219.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED753A6B5C for <rucus@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 08:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy26 with SMTP id 26so1710511ewy.37 for <rucus@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ntW5Jq2iaI3aSVphPYpC28XxjjpQUrY8vqTd4Hy1oEg=; b=H/zKebohr1BXvmBuwNO4zBkPRvjiHYKX+r4QyA5YCrniyY5YI5lOZCBaH50uZrTs3F a3D/5X5Ma0YJKK72yuqtnUmW8tIYDI2kP0BdxkPIfDjhyjzsdsRBI1bdVSgNqu5SwcLG Yo+0x6TC1+baZCOo4a2cVpvdanCitTmCfbluw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=JIe+MkuOMyj7dA1iv5ua+JZmqMKFW7+K5wUKRcbRmukFS3SBU2NRPXA9Q2FpVw5V9k VygFAADbTrtIQ+sOlmSdui1isc63WNKqI8JryCm4/sD8rg3T3Y87whw7q2w5pJUmiOSx 6a1CHWTZLPGJ4MED2CV6C6OwzZ8g6yl5xU8XQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.211.199.11 with SMTP id b11mr8187857ebq.57.1247067257386; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:34:17 +0300
Message-ID: <18a603a60907080834x46599d2fmb54763f0857df09c@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
To: Rucus BoF <rucus@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Rucus] SPIT from operator
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: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:34:15 -0000
Hello, I my country, subscribers receive a lot of SPIT from their operators. In my cell phone experience, the operator itself is the most serious SPIT problem. This makes me think that SPIT solutions must be operator independent. Would you have any comments on that? What is the situation in other countries? Which solutions can be applied? Thanks pars
- [Rucus] SPIT from operator Pars Mutaf
- Re: [Rucus] SPIT from operator Charzinski, Joachim (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Rucus] SPIT from operator Pars Mutaf
- Re: [Rucus] SPIT from operator David Schwartz
- Re: [Rucus] SPIT from operator Avasarala Ranjit-A20990