Standard advice to customer in the email world is to block countries that you 
don't do business with.  Seems a bit extreme bit if you have lot's of 
registrations from lets say Iran and you don't have any users/customer there 
and don't want any the just block that country.

I have at least half a dozen clients who block the whole world except the the 
region they're doing business in, in this case Australia. 

[ducks...:-]

David

http://zerp.ly/dbanes
xmpp: [email protected]
Mobile: +44 (0)782 5138 214






On 13/02/2013, at 5:03 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 2/13/13 8:41 AM, aszlig wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 09:48:59AM +0100, Per Gustafsson wrote:
>>> I work with Google's chat service, and we are seeing lots of
>>> spammy invites from users on various federated domains, including
>>> jabberes.org, jabber.se, jabber-hosting.com and jabber.org. Have
>>> you noted an elevated amount of sccount creation etc., and is
>>> there anything you can do about it in that case, otherwise we
>>> will have to institute very tight limits of invites per day being
>>> sent from federated domains.
>> 
>> Here I've got the same problems as well (aszlig.net,
>> headcounter.org, no-icq.org, noicq.org - not yet listed at xmpp.net
>> since the rework) and i'm going to disable new registrations as
>> soon as the load is low enough. The main target of these massive
>> spammy subscribes is gmail.com and it's quite hard to track them
>> down without "accidentally" locking out real users.
>> 
>> My second step would be to reenable registrations and only allow 
>> verified users to use S2S. But I'm not sure about how to do this
>> for every single user (maybe some kind of WoT within the local
>> network?).
>> 
>> So, any idea about how to mitigate this without forcing too much 
>> restrictions on real users (like for example I'd want to avoid 
>> captchas)?
> 
> Well, as we know CAPTCHA doesn't really work. It's better than
> nothing, but it's not very good.
> 
> Furthermore, I think these spammers don't need that many accounts, and
> therefore don't need to auto-create them. They can simply go to the
> web page where one creates accounts - such as
> https://register.jabber.org/ - and hand-register a few accounts as
> needed. Once we disable one of their accounts, they create another
> one. It's a game of whackamole.
> 
> IMHO we need:
> 
> 1. Better blocking of spammers by users
> 2. Better reporting of spam from users to services
> 3. Better reporting of spammers from service to service
> 4. Perhaps a general reputation mechanism
> 
> We have specs defined for #1, #3, and #4 (i.e., XEP-0191, XEP-0268,
> XEP-0275). We've talked about #2 as well (and a service could make
> guesses about who the spammers are based on XEP-0191 requests and
> other hints). However, we don't have implementations and we haven't
> deployed these methods.
> 
> Perhaps it would make sense for this to be a priority during the
> Google Summer of Code if the XMPP Standards Foundation is accepted as
> a sponsoring organization?
> 
> Peter
> 
> - -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRG8dTAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pddMP/21lOzbC/WTycr8Qq84xRsol
> ZL6I87zVG7rhhPNQRrDeSz6puYncdYx44YpBm97BxcokY47rtLaEfXfMd43d/8sP
> glCENleyUa6xuCWZzee3GL+lUdan5vIqIhxz2pc1wIo4W/SgGSpRgdMLvEsH68iU
> BROVH/0PjmMqNI82vFvkRe3YsfwUS0Kq45eJNXWLpY6H8B6MoAD27ybB52TW4rDR
> Zwp3wsWw4akJm3gddOvCkgCihCe7jvNTBj1wkqJnX6FHFblqq+TVyLIkKZXgPnbf
> Go1RLUyfP/wazCtUqMQepFWPNSoZ7+xrSD60wa38cNHj8iA7GDnti0WxhaYA2MF5
> QpnZz/WEfIBnMAy3c2JnHiGe9JLt9aTja5v+YA7AmBLEmLp3gngT7dTWAgo/XYhG
> n5ad4vd61XjJO1cONeeBljuqa3aypXmhEnbRvSDTRmhpGPehqxQEvLoYLGDLsqFG
> E7NlnNG4LH6neFglP3tgvFKoHsK6ZVGUBnlQQFWz92fVvqBrr+ptOGk7MpTKCzo3
> bPFrBwX0AuzgWRpxhnDif6oLP3mvUbzx8Tgb8JKYnZbU+FKRT/iVoRaZDKWmRGVy
> 2mGU6iLtLg0Xyht6ao/7cPi3znJYfiTgdbVCbQuJOVxVklA8fE/yRDuaVQzhe7kS
> 937vnedJEq3DwGZ8nxsQ
> =NXzE
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 



Reply via email to