[Afrispam-wg] call for comment 2

[SM]

At 00:50 25-09-2008, Jean Robert HOUNTOMEY wrote:
>The milestone for comments is the 11 th October.

I posted comments previously and I didn't receive any response to them.

>On 2nd May 2007 at the AfriNIC-6 meeting in Abuja Nigeria, anti-spam BOF
>(birds of a feather) meetings aimed at addressing specific issues relating
>to spam on African networks.

It's been over two years.  The discussion, or rather the lack of it, 
on this mailing list shows how concerned African networks are about spam.

>The urgent need for an action in the developing countries against spam was
>pointed out during the Internet governance and WSIS discussions.
>Several regions are taking bigs steps and leaving Africa far behind.

Africa will be left behind if the stakeholders in the AfriNIC region 
do not take any action.  Remember that it's not about showing the 
world that you are doing something; people won't take you seriously 
until you can actually show results.

>Taking into consideration that African users and Network operators are
>already facing several problems including issues like bandwidth, access and
>education. Meanwhile there seems to be a lack of anti-spam
>initiatives in the AfriNic Service Region.

There is a lack of community initiative in the AfriNIC region.  If 
bandwidth is an issue, then the "cost" of spam is more in this 
region.  That's one more reason to curb the problem.

>Parts of the AfriNIC region have gained a bad reputation within the
>international community for being the source of a large amout of spam and
>fraudulant emails and have become permanently blacklisted.

That's a good point.  It's easier to "blacklist" the /16 as it 
doesn't have much operational impact.  Once a block is in place, it's 
difficult to remove as this region does not have much sway.

>I.1 What is spam
>-----------------
>The exact definition of spam is something that has been subject to endless
>debates on many forums. Some feel that the implicit right to freedom of
>speech allows them to send any mails they wish. This however
>must be weighed up against the rights of the recipients.
>
>The definition of spam should largly be considered from the point of view of
>the recipient. Any mail that a recipient does not wish to receive can in
>many cases be considered as spam but there are some generally accepted
>characteristics of spam:
>
>- Bulk volumes of messages sent to thousands of users who have never
>requested to be sent them.
>- Messages that raise security concerns: Mail Bombing, Viruses, Phishing,
>Scams, ID Theft.
>- Messages that negatively affect the operation of the networks in the
>methods that they are delivered.
>- Mostly consisting of commercial, offensive or harmful content
>- Sending of messages that are difficult to trace back to a sender

The last point is not spam.  It's more of a problem for people fighting spam.

>The biggest challenge that African network operators face is a lack of
>knowledge. The methods of sending spam are continuously evolving and
>changing and the only way to combat this is to be continuously updating the
>spam fighting techniques. The knowledge about these techniques needs
>to be effectively shared between operators to ensure that their networks are
>able to continue to function and it is in their best interests to be
>collaborating with other operators within each country and across the
>continent.

What do you mean by knowledge?  Do you mean that network operators do 
not have the technical know-how to combat spam?  Why should operators 
share their techniques given that it gives them an edge over the competition?

>Law makers within each country should be lobbied to implement laws that will
>make the acts of abusing the Internet and spamming into criminal offences.
>This provides the operators with a firm basis for dictating what users may
>use the networks for and should provide the network operators protection in
>enforcing these rules.

This is a double-edged sword, especially for this region.  If 
operators do not fully understand the problem, then we can expect law 
makers to understand it less.  If the law is framed badly, it may 
cause more problems then it solves.

By being able to dictate what their users can use the network for, 
you may end up with policies such as blocking VoIP traffic and 
restricting traffic to some services only.  It may be in the interest 
of operators in the short term but it doesn't foster the emergence of 
new technologies and a more Internet-aware user-base.

>These considerations could be resumed in to 3 perspectives :
>- Registry  perspective
>- Operational perspective
>- Policies makers perspective

I don't expect a solution to spam as there is none.  However, I don't 
see any concrete measures in this report that will have any impact on 
spam in Africa.

Regards,
-sm