[Standards] s2s blocking of abusive users

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Jesus Cea wrote:

> I think stpeter is talking more in the line of "I'm receiving abusing
> traffic from XX at YYYY. I don't want to punish ALL @YYYY users. I rather
> prefer to send a control stanza to @YYYY server asking for banning
> XX at YYYY traffic to me, giving a reason". The @YYYY server could sent to
> XX at YYYY user an inmediate notification message for each sending try,
> like currently we do with the offline message storing (but these
> notifications would be sended by the @YYYY server, not the remote one),
> dropping the messages locally.

I think I'm talking about something like "Hey YYYY, I am receiving
abusing traffic from XX at YYYY. I don't want to punish ALL @YYYY users. I
am going to bounce stanzas from XX at YYYY with a <not-acceptable/> stanza
error with a special application-specific condition. Take that as you
please. However if I continue to receive these abusive stanzas, I may
send you a <policy-violation/> *stream* error and close the s2s connection."

Naturally, if I return a number of error stanzas then I have increased
the number of stanzas being exchanged, which (you could argue) induces a
multiplication attack. But the origin server now feels the pain as well,
and it can take local action based on my abuse reports. That may be some
kind of traffic filtering, it may be warning the local user or ending
their local session, etc. Right now I'm not as interested in that
problem and more interested in the simple matter of abuse reporting.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20071204/0cd7dcfc/attachment.bin