> On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:34 , Michael Peddemors <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 17-07-24 05:06 PM, Tony Hain wrote: >> I still don’t see any value in specifying length. What you are looking for >> is contact info for someone with a clue about how a given network works and >> using length as a really poor proxy. I could live with a fourth line: >> Any end network emitting SMTP system SHOULD provide SWIP. >> I just don’t know how that gets enforced in any reasonable way. In general >> SMTP & independent routing are the big targets needing accurate contact >> info, and length has absolutely nothing to do with either. >> Tony > > While I agree in principle, it CAN be provided by "SWIP" OR 'rwhois', and > that should be pointed out, as rwhois is more flexible in the IPv4 space, eg > providing allocation information to the /32 level. > > This again goes to an earlier email where I described that it should be more > conceptual, than specific ranges.. > > It should be, "if a party is responsible for the originating traffic", then > that party should be displayed via SWIP/rwhois.
Well… That’s hard to implement in practice. How do we go about SWIPing all those home windows boxes to the hackers that are actually controlling the emitted traffic? Owen _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
