Hi Lutz
Good try but this script does not do it. Firstly, if you start with the
allocation object it needs to be -rM in the first query. Then you are only
looking for the "org:" attribute. The INET(6)NUM object may have an "abuse-c:"
attribute in the object. It may have both in which case the
.
cheersdenis
co-chair DB-WG
- Forwarded message - From: ripedenis--- via anti-abuse-wg
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Sent: Tuesday, 22 September 2020, 22:50:52 CESTSubject:
[anti-abuse-wg] NWI reviews: NWI-1 staying on top of abuse contact changes
Colleagues
This is now a very old NWI that never
HI
When Tobias and I first developed the "abuse-c:" mechanism we wanted to keep
the design simple. But eventually we were overruled by the community who
preferred ease of use over simple design. So we are where we are :)
cheersdenis
co-chair DB-WG
On Wednesday, 23 September 2020, 13:14:38
, Sep 22, 2020 at 1:51 PM ripedenis--- via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
[...]
> Over time, with large hierarchies, we could end up with very complex
> arrangements with objects, attributes and values that have been overlooked
> and forgotten about. Even though they may have been forgot
Colleagues
This is now a very old NWI that never got out of the starting blocks. I am
posting this to the AA-WG as I think the discussion is more relevant to this
community given the impact of not properly managing this data.
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-May/005234.html
I would like to second Brian's comments below. The DB-WG has no mandate to
concern itself with issues concerning the RIPE NCC Exec Board. Any discussion
would be inappropriate on this mailing list.
cheersdenis
co-chair DB-WG
On Thursday, 16 April 2020, 10:34:54 CEST, Brian Nisbet via db-wg
Colleagues
The policy proposal 2019-04 makes lots of references to resource holders, RIPE
NCC members, LIRs and End Users. Only once does it mention 'customers of
resource holders'. I get the feeling that where it refers to 'End Uses' it
means PI resource holders. The argument for allowing the
cy violation if happens all the time with the
same operator). Never mind we decide or not that not-responding is an abuse-c
violation. Stats are good, even if not published with operator names.
El 17/1/20 1:12, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de ripedenis--- via anti-abuse-wg"
escribió:
Hi
Hi Sergio
As I read through this thread similar ideas came to my mind. The question I
would ask is "Is it too late to take a completely different approach to abuse
contacts and reporting via the RIPE Database?"
Suppose we had a standard form available via the ripe.net website for providing
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 reinforce them. I cut out the
bits I want to respond to, but sorry I have not
10 matches
Mail list logo
