Effective protection from Spit (VoIP Spam)? - VoIP General, VoIP News, VoIP Providers, VoIP hardware, VoIP software, VoIP Technology

Rear community,

Concerning Spit I have the following,
easily understandable,
Publication found.
(this some will have already read surely,
already the because of, because it spit with the Google search “voip Spam”
stands nearly whole in front)

http://wwwpc.prz.tu-berlin.de/klaus/...2007-06-06.pdf

An evaluation of the Wirksammkeit does not lie in mine estimated.
But I read from with whom the preventive measures as per. og. Studies to lie would have.

That presents itself for me in such a way,
that we must step our VoIP Telefongesellschaften in time on the feet,
BEFORE and same as with email happens.

Because interestingly enough I have since longer approx. a Spam Mail/a week,
whereas there were times at which I 10/day got.

MfG

ENRIC0

Quotation:

Quotation of ENRIC0

http://wwwpc.prz.tu-berlin.de/klaus/...2007-06-06.pdf
An evaluation of the Wirksammkeit does not lie in mine estimated.

then I measured times on

already after 1 minute fall the concept far behind the development of Spam-filter for email back and it are noticeable 3 fundamental thinking and knowledge error in the work read:

1. from me call centers beautifully far TIE-CLIP can suppress, thus do I already since more jeher greylisten and tar-dug (into the waiting loop to place or run off leave other chicanery scripts), i.e. filter methods of email-Spam-filter are nevertheless applicable and one should on the experiences construct, which fr. Professor. unfortunately answers in the negative, instead of wanting to invent the wheel again. straight intend the government to forbid the number suppression (already law?) and if the advancement of the VoIP devices on customer side, which can be expected, opens spammern the door and gate lets SPIT filter except eight or if it makes even destroyed, then can be only filtered by whitelist.

2. filter to provider with still so thought out methods to page out brings nix, then make direktmarketer evenly advertising contracts with those and those strew then legally advertisement around itself thereby mitzufinanzieren*, like some freemailprovider, “greeting map services” etc. and deal with it the filters… and are entitled pay more spammer from the petty cash exactly the same as the past punish. the business remains nevertheless economically weils simply too many people gives and will always give, which over advertising-call yourself contracts talk into let, which is from the consumer economy also in such a way wanted and the policy you act never against even if occasionally contrary in press are lied. social problems cannot be averaged with technical solved and the creativity of the direct marketing industry are strongly underestimated here.

3. and that is only possible if the caller is with goal sip more provider registered or with the obligation to S/ZRTP and SIP of over TLS do not force and the standards to it and also not to authentifizierung with certificates, it leaves itself still not times TLS pflichtantwort with Internet mail to MTAs to intersperse:
Quotation:

Based on a secured Identi ﬁ cation and Authen
ti ﬁ zierung the caller becomes therefore its past telephone IE
held back analyzes and interprets.

everything hardly economically realizable because runs toward *dumpingwettbewerb with costing saving obligations on voip the market completely. no more provider their that will buy, which want such problems and as usual with new technologies geflligst on the customers outgesourced and to have shifted, one sees risks nevertheless in each AGB. in addition data security-legally and tk-geheimnisbezglich (GG) everything strongly precariously.

there I naturally also gladly mistakes in reasoning make am strained I on the further debate.

… hmmm… … najaAa…

But the Telefongesellschaft to that the call,
and/or. to its customer the call is placed,
point nevertheless from where the call comes.

(Does not go differently, because of the account.)

And evenly these our (customer) VoIP Telefongesellschaft,
can (and only those, not we) through-place the call to block.

Which leads at the same time to it,
as with email,
the need after cleanliness,
in the gesammten Systhem spreads.

no, the detector is to run only with more zielprovider, and even that is already data security legal and tk-secret precarious.

(pour) provider with which I am a customer and who supervises mine telephone with restraint? -> state security service 2.1

yes, clearly, with more zielprovieder (as you write)
I meant nevertheless.

and that must block more spit'er.
keyword blacklist.

that is always like that, in each community of that urgesellschaft unwanted the public disturbing until today to act is prevented and punished.
in addition belonged also monitoring, does not sun right security.
in this case consider I it justified.

did not blacklisten function because the spammer their numbers constantly change and your “liberal” constitutional state understanding do not commentate I rather. such total monitoring is a disturbance of each free public, sorry.

You consider a general telephone monitoring justified to only prevent in order advertising calls?

I ned, enrico apparent.

that is nevertheless a SCN-measured verallgemeinerung.

go with sipgate 100 calls from a number purely belongs on one blacklist.
which in addition leads that telephone number assigned company likewise motivated is offenders of itself to be kept far.

to the 2x: blacklisten are ineffective and lead rather to communication death, because more spammer under the innocent mix and their number pools constantly change. you can only grey or whitelisten. safety precautions must be in addition the liberty there protect not to limit it otherwise they miss their goal.

and the direct marketing economy as criminal “offenders” to condemn thereby I was careful…
that you repent at the latest if your VoIP turn out were chopped of SPIT course and those kannste nen day long as relay to use, then only hopes that more ermittler, judges and think more provider not in such a way like you, otherwise have you too late of the law thought