[anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

Hi, Neither do I. But what I do think is that RIPE should do the work that it is set out to do, namely registration of data. It should do that very well. Make sure that the data is sufficient, valid and remains to be valid. And that clear indicators of that not happening should be seen as a

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

Ronald, I'm not finding a great place to ask these questions in your conversation with Sander, so I'm going to ask them here. You said, at one point, that you did not see the point in reporting these issues, or even just specifically the AS204224 issue to the NCC. Given the investigations

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

Hi Roland, > The old saying is "The best is the enemy of the good". Validation and/or > verification of RIPE WHOIS data can be improved, even though any system > which attempts to do so most probably cannot be made foolproof. Ok > No. You're still thinking in terms of constructing an

[anti-abuse-wg] Whois database verification

Hello! Several years ago I already got a postcard with a verification code to prove that my postal address is correct. And this was not a paid service but a large freemailer with thousands of customers. So, no it's not rocket science and yes it was already done this way in large quantities (by

[anti-abuse-wg] Also seeking input [branching from 'WHOIS (AS204224)']

Dear group members, For many years I've silently followed these discussions and now a project is emerging on which I'd like to ask whether any of you knowledgeable members might wish to help. The project starts in a different place but will inform your deliberations. Background: Two years ago

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

Hi all Interesting conversation. It took me a while to read it all. I would like to add a few of my own thoughts based on my experiences. Although I will target my comments in response to specific points raised by many of the contributors to the discussion, I offer all my comments with the

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

Thanks - I've hung around apricot and apnic long enough to know how that works (though these past few years I can't travel so I'm simply on the apricot / Sanog fellowship and program committees) I haven't ever attended a ripe meeting though and wasn't aware of this wg - in my circles

[anti-abuse-wg] Mimecast.com

Hello, Has anyone of you had much/any dealings with this crowd: Mimecast.com ? Less than 1% of our email volume exchanges with them, and yesterday after complaining about abuse/UBE from them and receiving no response, escalated to @telstra and then all of a sudden they are returning all email in

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

On 03/11/2015 14:14, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 01:49:18PM +, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:13:17PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: I would actually prefer any such proposal to come from within the regular RIPE community, rather than from one

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

If someone regular is willing to set a direction that I see a chance of achieving consensus with - I will contribute as much as I can when participating remotely. I do believe in putting my effort where my mouth is :) --srs > On 03-Nov-2015, at 8:07 PM, Brian Nisbet

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

Again: Implementation details. But, if such mails were to be sent, it would remind them that their address is registered and that they have a responsibility for an online resource. Additionally: I get mailinglist reminders every month (and they do not bother me). Not sure if that would

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)

If you can tell me just how a consensus at APWG and MAAWG, say, or on various actually security focused lists, that the RIPE community needs policy changes is going to make an iota of difference to what policies get implemented by RIPE NCC Right now, most other lists that I see this thread