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

David Schwartz <dschwartz@xconnect.net> Thu, 09 July 2009 11:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dschwartz@xconnect.net>
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 E03B53A699E for <rucus@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 04:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 XJZcjXY56OtY for <rucus@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 04:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outlook.xconnect.net (outlook.xconnect.net [212.25.92.170]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6DC28C1E0 for <rucus@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 04:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ISR-JLM-MAIL1.xconnect.co.il ([172.16.100.8]) by ISR-JLM-MAIL1.xconnect.co.il ([172.16.100.8]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:49:54 +0300
From: David Schwartz <dschwartz@xconnect.net>
To: Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:49:53 +0300
Thread-Topic: Operator-assisted SPIT filtering (was Re: [Rucus] SPIT from operator)
Thread-Index: AcoAikCcQocW+A4NSb2dP54NNAZsXAAABjLg
Message-ID: <6EA53FAD386F9D46B97D49BFE148D5148CE25B@ISR-JLM-MAIL1.xconnect.co.il>
In-Reply-To: <18a603a60907090441u4d68d0f3x6aa72177811b4b6c@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Rucus BoF <rucus@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Rucus] Operator-assisted SPIT filtering (was Re: 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: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:49:53 -0000

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.

> 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