From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Tue Feb 9 05:11:42 2010 Return-Path: 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 617413A7581 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:11:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.498 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, 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 xV06GHzaW0AT for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:11:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF7D3A737D for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:11:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o19DCc0c001937 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:12:38 +0100 Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (demuexc022.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o19DCWKi023525 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:12:38 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:12:32 +0100 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: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:16:45 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B45022D51B7@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: SPIT Misuse Classification? Thread-Index: AcqpdcyUb2t9Ywk1QjuLlkCiMxp57AAFDtpg From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2010 13:12:32.0374 (UTC) FILETIME=[89F6B160:01CAA989] Subject: [Rucus] SPIT Misuse Classification? X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:11:42 -0000 Hi all,=20 I am looking for a classification of SPIT misuse. Has someone worked on such a classification terminology or seen it elsewhere?=20 Thanks in advance! Ciao Hannes From hgs@cs.columbia.edu Tue Feb 9 05:47:09 2010 Return-Path: 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 D31BD3A7393 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:47:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, 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 lnl46htkrXuj for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:47:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from tarap.cc.columbia.edu (tarap.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE2CB3A71D6 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:47:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from upstairs.home (pool-173-54-225-147.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net [173.54.225.147]) (user=hgs10 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by tarap.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o19DmDuW005162 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 9 Feb 2010 08:48:13 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Henning Schulzrinne In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B45022D51B7@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 08:48:13 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <592946D5-B7B1-4C18-9B4F-25DABD67C0E8@cs.columbia.edu> References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B45022D51B7@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) X-No-Spam-Score: Local X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.7 Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] SPIT Misuse Classification? X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:47:10 -0000 Can you explain what you mean by "SPIT misuse"? All SPIT would seem to = be mis/abuse... On Feb 9, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > Hi all,=20 >=20 > I am looking for a classification of SPIT misuse. Has someone worked = on > such a classification terminology or seen it elsewhere?=20 >=20 > Thanks in advance! >=20 > Ciao > Hannes > _______________________________________________ > Rucus mailing list > Rucus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus >=20 From hannes.tschofenig@nsn.com Tue Feb 9 05:51:31 2010 Return-Path: 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 283F43A739D for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:51:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, 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 qRbio-nT7rNG for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:51:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2CB23A735A for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 05:51:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o19DqR8t019843 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:52:27 +0100 Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (demuexc022.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o19DqOWg012787; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:52:27 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.23]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:52:25 +0100 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: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:56:39 +0200 Message-ID: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B45022D524F@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <592946D5-B7B1-4C18-9B4F-25DABD67C0E8@cs.columbia.edu> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Rucus] SPIT Misuse Classification? Thread-Index: Acqpjoo3SnsHFkWTQMuSZHaocG+tFwAAKaNQ References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B45022D51B7@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> <592946D5-B7B1-4C18-9B4F-25DABD67C0E8@cs.columbia.edu> From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: "ext Henning Schulzrinne" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2010 13:52:25.0940 (UTC) FILETIME=[1CA3E140:01CAA98F] Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] SPIT Misuse Classification? X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:51:31 -0000 That was a bit unfortunate wording and Joachim noticed this mistake as well.=20 What I would like to hear is whether someone tried to classify the different versions of SPIT in some way already. For example, I could classify them according to the source (fixed vs. mobile networks), the intented outcome, some technical approaches being used, etc.=20 >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu]=20 >Sent: 09 February, 2010 15:48 >To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) >Cc: rucus@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Rucus] SPIT Misuse Classification? > >Can you explain what you mean by "SPIT misuse"? All SPIT would=20 >seem to be mis/abuse... > >On Feb 9, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > >> Hi all, >>=20 >> I am looking for a classification of SPIT misuse. Has someone worked=20 >> on such a classification terminology or seen it elsewhere? >>=20 >> Thanks in advance! >>=20 >> Ciao >> Hannes >> _______________________________________________ >> Rucus mailing list >> Rucus@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus >>=20 > > From ranjit@motorola.com Wed Feb 10 02:59:52 2010 Return-Path: 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 3E6DF3A72D4 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:59:52 -0800 (PST) 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=[AWL=0.000, 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 QC0NsMTyB-po for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:59:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail128.messagelabs.com (mail128.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C9F3A72CE for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:59:51 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: ranjit@motorola.com X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-128.messagelabs.com!1265799660!9269965!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [136.182.1.15] Received: (qmail 8161 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2010 11:01:00 -0000 Received: from motgate5.mot.com (HELO motgate5.mot.com) (136.182.1.15) by server-11.tower-128.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 10 Feb 2010 11:01:00 -0000 Received: from il27exr04.cig.mot.com ([10.17.196.73]) by motgate5.mot.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o1AB0sxh009346 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:01:00 -0700 (MST) Received: from il27vts02.mot.com (il27vts02.cig.mot.com [10.17.196.86]) by il27exr04.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id o1AB0s9B002712 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:00:54 -0600 (CST) Received: from ZMY16EXM66.ds.mot.com (zmy16exm66.ap.mot.com [10.179.4.26]) by il27exr04.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id o1AB0o2l002670 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:00:51 -0600 (CST) 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: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:00:28 +0800 Message-ID: <750BBC72E178114F9DC4872EBFF29A5B0A2CD530@ZMY16EXM66.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B45022D524F@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Rucus] SPIT Misuse Classification? thread-index: Acqpjoo3SnsHFkWTQMuSZHaocG+tFwAAKaNQACweWgA= References: <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B45022D51B7@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net><592946D5-B7B1-4C18-9B4F-25DABD67C0E8@cs.columbia.edu> <3D3C75174CB95F42AD6BCC56E5555B45022D524F@FIESEXC015.nsn-intra.net> From: "Avasarala Ranjit-A20990" To: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" , "ext Henning Schulzrinne" X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] SPIT Misuse Classification? X-BeenThere: rucus@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Reducing Unwanted Communication Using SIP \(RUCUS\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:59:52 -0000 Hi The 3GPP spec 24.611 addresses the procedures for Dynamic Incoming Communication Barring (ICB) where the subscribers upon understanding that the incoming communication is unwanted could indicate to the network to block the calling user. This uses the SIP request BYE with Reason header. E.g BYE ... ...... Reason: block; cause=3D1; text=3D"Telemarketer" Similarly the caller could be blocked during call alerting phase too by putting the Reason header in a 4xx message. Thanks Regards Ranjit -----Original Message----- From: rucus-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rucus-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 7:27 PM To: ext Henning Schulzrinne Cc: rucus@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rucus] SPIT Misuse Classification? That was a bit unfortunate wording and Joachim noticed this mistake as well.=20 What I would like to hear is whether someone tried to classify the different versions of SPIT in some way already. For example, I could classify them according to the source (fixed vs. mobile networks), the intented outcome, some technical approaches being used, etc.=20 >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:hgs@cs.columbia.edu] >Sent: 09 February, 2010 15:48 >To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) >Cc: rucus@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Rucus] SPIT Misuse Classification? > >Can you explain what you mean by "SPIT misuse"? All SPIT would seem to=20 >be mis/abuse... > >On Feb 9, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: > >> Hi all, >>=20 >> I am looking for a classification of SPIT misuse. Has someone worked=20 >> on such a classification terminology or seen it elsewhere? >>=20 >> Thanks in advance! >>=20 >> Ciao >> Hannes >> _______________________________________________ >> Rucus mailing list >> Rucus@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus >>=20 > > _______________________________________________ Rucus mailing list Rucus@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rucus