It appears you missed the point of my email.
How can you say rules apply to this list, but not RIPE itself?
Given the logic of many on this list:
+ You are not the internet police,
+ Some people may not agree with a rule, so therefore there are no rules at
all,
+ you, as an
In message <1609071e-bf44-4e1d-9c81-98616f11b...@consulintel.es>, JORDI
PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg writes
>El 16/1/20 21:37, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Richard Clayton" boun...@ripe.net en nombre de rich...@highwayman.com> escribió:
>
>In message , JORDI
>PALET MARTINEZ via
Yes of course it would have to be an automated process. A benefit of
encrypting all the data is that it keeps the RIPE NCC out of any legal actions
that may follow. They are simply a forwarding service and have no other details.
cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG
On Friday, 17 January 2020,
Maybe I’m not using the right wording.
What I’m suggesting is and “intermediation” but automated. NCC staff doesn’t
“see” anything, just goes thru a system that logs everything and forwards to
each other party.
El 17/1/20 13:04, "Volker Greimann" escribió:
Hmm, if you include RIPE NCC
STOP SPAM
Envoyé de mon iPhone par René Briaut
Le 17 janv. 2020 à 13:04, Volker Greimann a écrit :
Hmm, if you include RIPE NCC in all responses, you will greatly increase the
overhead and noise to signal ratio it has to deal with. It may be better to
maintain the ability to audit the
Hmm, if you include RIPE NCC in all responses, you will greatly increase
the overhead and noise to signal ratio it has to deal with. It may be
better to maintain the ability to audit the responses. instead of receiving
them all.
--
Volker A. Greimann
General Counsel and Policy Manager
Honestly, you can disagree all you want, but there are rules of conduct in the
RIPE community and on this list. My email served as a polite reminder of those
rules. If a member of the list chooses not to follow them, then steps will be
taken in regards to direct communication, then moderation
>> but we can tell you not to do it here, so please don't.
Well... no, i disagree.
Brian Nisbet, i would like to remind you, that ... You are not the Internet
Police.
In fact, what you consider to be a rule, might not be something that every
single person on this planet also considers to
Hi Alessandro,
El 17/1/20 10:24, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
escribió:
Hi,
a few points:
The “abuse-mailbox:” attribute must be available in an unrestricted way
via whois, APIs and future techniques.
I'd explicitly mention RDAP
Hi Michele,
(changing the subject so we can correctly track this and following emails)
The last version is available here:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04
But the goal of this discussion is to understand what the community want, for
making a new version.
I think
Not you either. There are many others vocally arguing for complete inaction.
—srs
From: Gert Doering
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 1:34 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: Randy Bush; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new
I will be fine with this (having RIPE NCC as an intermediator just to send the
abuse report), if instead of a web form (or in addition to it), it is possible
to automate it, for example RIPE NCC also accepts x-arf via email.
RIPE NCC has the obligation to keep the information without disclosing
I've been trying to follow the back and forth here over the last few days and
to be honest I'm rather confused.
Which text is actually being proposed?
A lot of the discussion here seems to have gone off into all sorts of tangents
and it's hard to see what is actually being discussed
Michele
Hi Denis,
El 17/1/20 0:30, "ripede...@yahoo.co.uk" escribió:
Colleagues
I have just read this whole thread, it took a while (I should get sick more
often and spend a day in bed reading emails). I have a few points to make. Some
are similar to points already raised but I will
Hi Richard,
El 16/1/20 21:37, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Richard Clayton"
escribió:
In message , JORDI
PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg writes
>So, if I'm reading it correctly (not being a lawyer), a service provider
not
>acting against abuse when it has been
Hi,
a few points:
The “abuse-mailbox:” attribute must be available in an unrestricted way
via whois, APIs and future techniques.
I'd explicitly mention RDAP here. It's not a future technique any more
Confirm that the resource holder understands the procedure and the policy,
Sérgio,
I’m not sure if you’ve had the opportunity to read the RIPE Policy Development
Process - https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies - but it lays out how
policy is created in the community.
Very deliberately this is not a vote, it comes out of discussion (which can, at
times, seem to
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 02:44:30AM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Database and routing people who haven???t worked security or don???t want
> security roles trying to lecture people who work cert and abuse roles on why
> something abuse mitigation related won???t work is always
18 matches
Mail list logo
