Hi Petrit, all,
Thanks a lot for the clarification. I only discovered that once I was working
on the slide for tomorrow, as during the previous days discussion I always used
my original word proposal document.
I had the feeling that some of the points that we discussed in the last days
were
Hi Alessandro,
I just read Marco response to this thread (Marco thanks for the quick reaction
on it!), and also Angel response (so to avoid answering to several emails about
the same).
I guess all your other inputs are also relevant for the NCC.
In principle, I don't think all that should be
Dear colleagues,
The proposer has alerted us to a mistake in the “Draft Document” prepared for
policy proposal 2019-04:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04/draft
The “Additional information” section in the draft document is part of the
proposal and should not be
El mié, 13-05-2020 a las 15:11 +0200, Marco Schmidt escribió:
> Hello Jordi,
>
> Allow me to respond as this is a more an operational topic.
>
> I agree with you that RIPE policies should provide the general
> framework, while the RIPE NCC works out the best operational details
> to
> apply
Hello Jordi,
Allow me to respond as this is a more an operational topic.
I agree with you that RIPE policies should provide the general
framework, while the RIPE NCC works out the best operational details to
apply the policies.
In the mentioned example the procedure has worked, as the
Hi Jordy,
On Tue 12/May/2020 22:21:11 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> El 12/5/20 19:26, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
> escribió:
>
> I think it is more useful instead of removing the address, marking the
> record as invalid, and this is being done if I
Hello Ángel, WG,
> On 13 May 2020, at 00:45, Ángel González Berdasco
> wrote:
>
>> ...
>
> 5.135.48.50is one of such IP addresses.
> It has as abuse-c ab...@for-ns.com, which is trivially invalid: for-
> ns.com mail is handled by 10 mail.for-ns.com. mail.for-ns.com has
> address 176.9.154.142
Clearly something that RIPE NCC should improve in their procedures (or at least
explain if there is any issue doing so), but I don't think we need to include
those procedural details in the policy proposal.
What do you think Petrit?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 13/5/20 0:46,
El mar, 12-05-2020 a las 22:21 +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-
abuse-wg escribió:
> You misunderstood me. I'm not advocating de-registration of IP
> resources. I
> meant to remove just the abuse-c email address, since it does not
> work. As an
> alternative, as Àngel noted,
Hi Alessandro,
El 12/5/20 19:26, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
escribió:
Hi Jordy,
On Tue 12/May/2020 11:34:19 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
>> El 8/5/20 20:18, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
escribió:
>> On Fri
Hi Jordy,
On Tue 12/May/2020 11:34:19 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>> El 8/5/20 20:18, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
>> escribió:
>> On Fri 08/May/2020 13:28:10 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As I've indicated already
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 11/05/2020 18:23:
All I am asking is that cobblers stick to their last. People with
backgrounds in routing and networking are not necessarily the people in
their organizations that handle abuse issues.
From another point of view, you're asking for the RIPE NCC
Hi Nick,
El 8/5/20 23:58, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 08/05/2020 12:07:
> [Jordi] The job of the RIPE NCC is to implement the policies agreed
> by the community. Different folks may consider different pieces of
> all of our
Hi Alessandro,
El 8/5/20 20:18, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
escribió:
On Fri 08/May/2020 13:28:10 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> Hi Alessandro,
>
> As I've indicated already several times (and not just in this
discussion), all the
Hi Sergey,
El 8/5/20 16:28, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Sergey Myasoedov via
anti-abuse-wg" escribió:
Dear Jordi,
> There are existing procedures for that in extreme cases.
I think it's now obvious that existing procedures does not work.
[Jordi] I don't think so, however if
Luck [ml] , anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
Hi Suresh,
> All I am asking is that cobblers stick to their last. People with
> backgrounds in routing and networking are not necessarily the people
> in
Hi,
On Mon, 11 May 2020, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Precisely. But I wonder whether it is a greater problem to be packeted by a
bot with C2 in IP space that would have been better off not being allocated,
rather than being spammed
or phished from there. And how much greater or lesser
Hi Suresh,
> All I am asking is that cobblers stick to their last. People with
> backgrounds in routing and networking are not necessarily the people
> in their organizations that handle abuse issues.
As I'm sure you're aware, the RIPE working groups are open to all
(regardless of any
and networking
people face from having resources taken away for originating such traffic.
From: Gert Doering
Date: Monday, 11 May 2020 at 11:12 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: Sascha Luck [ml] , anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"
Hi,
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:46:51AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > If this is about "do you want a mail address or a web form for
> > reporting abuse?", no, routing and networking people do not really
> > care much.
>
> depends. will the bikeshed be magenta?
magenta bikesheds are only
> If this is about "do you want a mail address or a web form for
> reporting abuse?", no, routing and networking people do not really
> care much.
depends. will the bikeshed be magenta?
randy
Hi,
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 05:23:43PM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> All I am asking is that cobblers stick to their last. People with backgrounds
> in routing and networking are not necessarily the people in their
> organizations that handle abuse issues.
>
> Unless by extension you
want to go and filter spam for example.
From: anti-abuse-wg
Date: Monday, 11 May 2020 at 10:48 PM
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 11:56:58AM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>In
ard ,
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
Hi,
On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 01:12:32AM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Has this even been put to a vote or is it the same group of extremely vocal
RIPE regulars
Ángel González Berdasco wrote on 11/05/2020 17:08:
These are not statistics about online abuse. These are statistics about
the contact information registered by RIPE being valid.
The statistics thing was something that was inserted into version 3 of
the proposal. It's hard to tell what the
El vie, 08-05-2020 a las 22:57 +0100, Nick Hilliard escribió:
> > I'm happy if you believe that my wording
> > is not good, and we agree on that goal, to find an alternative one.
> > Any suggestion?
>
> Firstly, if you propose to collect stats about anything, you need to
> think about what sort
On Sun 10/May/2020 04:43:30 +0200 No No wrote:
> /" A statement by the registrant that they are not willing to employ an abuse
> team would be the best evidence."/
> /
> /
> ... Followed by swift de-registration of all IP resources.
Bravo! Here you're touching the very essence of our
*" A statement by the registrant that they are not willing to employ an
abuse team would be the best evidence."*
... Followed by swift de-registration of all IP resources.
---
On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 8:28 PM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Fri 08/May/2020 21:30:14 +0200 Ángel González Berdasco
Doering
Date: Saturday, 9 May 2020 at 3:57 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: Randy Bush , Nick Hilliard ,
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
Hi,
On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 01:12:32AM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wr
On Fri 08/May/2020 21:30:14 +0200 Ángel González Berdasco wrote:
> On 08-05-2020 20:17 +0200, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On Fri 08/May/2020 13:28:10 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>>> Hi Alessandro,
>>>
>>> As I've indicated already several times (and not just in this
>>> discussion), all the
Hi,
On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 01:12:32AM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Has this even been put to a vote or is it the same group of extremely vocal
> RIPE regulars against it and the same group of extremely vocal security types
> for it? Rough consensus has its limitations in such
: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
> It's ok for consensus to be that a policy proposal be rejected
> entirely.
but how many times?
randy
> It's ok for consensus to be that a policy proposal be rejected
> entirely.
but how many times?
randy
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 08/05/2020 12:07:
[Jordi] The job of the RIPE NCC is to implement the policies agreed
by the community. Different folks may consider different pieces of
all of our policies as "inappropriate" or "arbitrary"
which is fine, mostly. Subject to usual
On 08-05-2020 20:17 +0200, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Fri 08/May/2020 13:28:10 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > Hi Alessandro,
> >
> > As I've indicated already several times (and not just in this
> > discussion), all the RIRs have forms or other methods to escalate
> > any issues.
> >
>
On Fri 08/May/2020 13:28:10 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> Hi Alessandro,
>
> As I've indicated already several times (and not just in this discussion),
> all the RIRs have forms or other methods to escalate any issues.
>
> The proposal is only changing "let's have
Dear Jordi,
> There are existing procedures for that in extreme cases.
I think it's now obvious that existing procedures does not work.
--
Sergey
Friday, May 8, 2020, 1:20:45 PM, you wrote:
JPMvaaw> However, I fully understand that the community prefer to do things in
different steps.
Hi Alessandro,
As I've indicated already several times (and not just in this discussion), all
the RIRs have forms or other methods to escalate any issues.
The proposal is only changing "let's have stats".
El 4/5/20 12:29, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
escribió:
Hi,
However, I fully understand that the community prefer to do things in different
steps.
We initially asked for the abuse mailbox.
Then we added a technical validation.
Now I'm asking for a better validations and make sure that the reporting is
feasible. I'm not asking to verify if you handle
El 29/4/20 14:23, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Gert Doering"
escribió:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 01:44:42PM +0200, Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> >> Coming from the incident response side, I'm tiered of people constantly
> >> telling me, that issues are not their
e.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
Hi All
I think this is a good policy.
We can always find use cases where it fails, but it will help in some
cases.
And if some one is not able to answer an e-mail every six month, th
El 29/4/20 4:25, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de No No"
escribió:
In relation to the policy, where it says: "must not force the sender to use a
form."
as someone that reports phishing websites, I find the use of forms helpful, as
it ensures the company receives the report, particularly
Hi Nick, all,
I was waiting a few days because I though it will be easier wait for most of
the participants to be able to react and then try to summarize and respond to
all the comments in a single email.
I'm going to try to do it anyway with as fewer emails as I can. This means
trying to
I fully agree with Gert here.
The proposal is not trying to punish anyone, just to improve things, make sure
that errors are discovered and corrected, and for that we need to have stats
and tools.
And this is why it was also removed from this version text that we had in
previous versions
Is this "Alessandro Vesely" person from an alternate universe or something?
"The Police aren't going to respond to a call about someone breaking in to
my house... so let's just remove the phone number from the phone book all
together."
What. The.. F
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at
As long as the ASNs that are not maintaining an abuse address are published
along with the no complaints list, I personally have no complaints.
From: anti-abuse-wg
Date: Monday, 4 May 2020 at 3:59 PM
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation
Hi,
On 29/04/2020 13:22, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> If people *want* to handle abuse reports, they do so today already
> (and if they mess up their mail reception, the NCC will check this today
> already, and let them know).
>
> If people *do not want* to handle abuse reports, this proposal will
Hi,
On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 12:10:05AM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
> Can NCC members decide to stop following ripe policies one day?
No.
They sign a contract that they will follow RIPE policies when signing
up to be NCC members.
Whether this has a solid legal basis if the policies should
Vernon Schryver’s FUSSP is still relevant since what, 2000 or so?
--srs
From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Richard
Clayton
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 6:28:42 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation
In message , Elad Cohen writes
>if I will have the honor of being
>elected to the Ripe Board I will
[...]
>At the source BGP router, for any ip packet with a source address
>that is from the network of the source BGP router (lets call it
>original ip packet) - the source
Richard Clayton wrote:
> >There will be an API for the system with an option for email notifications
> >just
> >like abuse complaints are received in email messages now, so there will be
> >no
> >overhead to your staff. Regarding the reporters - this overhead can protect
> >from
> >flood of
In message , Elad Cohen writes
[of RIPE NCC operating a centralised abuse reporting system]
>To my opinion, this kind of anti-abuse system expense will be low and much
>more
>needed than many other expenses in the ~30M euros yearly expenses of Ripe.
Since there is already an (to a large
: Thursday, April 30, 2020 7:58:14 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: Sascha Luck [ml] ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 30/04/2020 14:07:
> What would get discussed in an
Neylon - Blacknight
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 6:50 PM
To: Elad Cohen ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
; Serge Droz
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
Elad
I strongly oppose this concept.
It’s not up to RIPE to run this and we don’t pay
on behalf of Suresh
Ramasubramanian
Sent: Thursday 30 April 2020 14:07
To: Sascha Luck [ml] ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do
not cl
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 30/04/2020 14:07:
What would get discussed in an anti abuse wg?
Carrots? Almost all the discussion in AAWG seems to be single-tracked
on turning the RIPE NCC registry into a stick.
E.g. industry standards / best practices, liaison with other anti-abuse
Can NCC members decide to stop following ripe policies one day?
Regards,
Arash
On Fri, 1 May 2020, 00:02 No No, wrote:
> *>> You're assuming that the RIPE NCC has a right to tell organisations
> what they can or cannot do with their addresses.*
>
> It's not *their* addresses, it's RIPE's
*>> You're assuming that the RIPE NCC has a right to tell organisations
what they can or cannot do with their addresses.*
It's not *their* addresses, it's RIPE's addresses, which they allocated.
It's not *their* resources that are abused, it's the peer enabled
relationship that carries their bull
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 30/04/2020 13:42:
RIPE NCC need not decide whether a behaviour is legal or not in order to
prohibit use of resources that it allocates for such behaviour.
You're putting the car before the horse. You're assuming that the RIPE
NCC has a right to tell
To: Sascha Luck [ml] ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do
not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender
> --srs
>>
>> From: Nick Hilliard
>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:43:04 PM
>> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
>> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
>> "abu
PM
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:42:09PM +, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>RIPE NCC need not decide whether a behaviour is legal or not in order to
>prohibit
to refuse service no matter how (or
> if) the client is dressed.
>
> Why are we havijg thjis discussion yet again?
>
> rgds,
> Sascha Luck
>
> >
> >--srs
> >
> >From: Nick Hilliard
> >Sent: Thursday, April 30, 20
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 30/04/2020 01:58:
Why would I ask about something I am posting as an individual in my
personal capacity?
because yo
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 30/04/2020 01:58:
> Why would I ask about something I am posting as an individual in my
> personal capacity?
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 30/04/2020 01:58:
Why would I ask about something I am posting as an individual in my
personal capacity?
because your day job involves abuse / security and in that capacity you
may have access to good quality legal resources.
I see great pains being taken to
Hans-Martin and other fellow anti-abuse working group members,
On 30/04/2020 09.41, Hans-Martin Mosner wrote:
Am 30.04.20 um 02:58 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian:
However, being in a fiduciary role - with IPv4 being traded like
currency these days the description fits - RIPE NCC can’t not
-wg
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 6:55 PM
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
So, it's the security guys, saying
This may help a bit, but won't solve all problems.
versus the infrastructure operators saying
> �
>
> �
>
> *De:* anti-abuse-wg *Em Nome De *Elad Cohen
> *Enviada:* 29 de abril de 2020 11:15
> *Para:* anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net; Serge Droz
> *Assunto:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
> "abuse-mailbox")
>
> �
>
>
I do not disagree with this.
Serge
On 30.04.20 09:41, Hans-Martin Mosner wrote:
> Am 30.04.20 um 02:58 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian:
>>
>> However, being in a fiduciary role - with IPv4 being traded like
>> currency these days the description fits - RIPE NCC can’t not get
>> involved.
>>
>
Am 30.04.20 um 02:58 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian:
>
> However, being in a fiduciary role - with IPv4 being traded like currency
> these days the description fits - RIPE NCC
> can’t not get involved.
>
...
> NCC owes it to the rest of its membership and the internet community at large
> to
On 29.04.20 18:22, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> To be clear, it's a fundamental right in large chunks of the RIPE
> service region to conduct business. If the RIPE NCC acts to threaten to
> remove this ability to conduct business, there would need to be sound
> legal justification for doing so.
Well if it's a fundamental right to do business, and someone can't do
business because their network is subject to a DDoS or their communication
medium (email) is spammed by someone from a network where the network
operator "ignores" abuse emails, and has to spend money sorting through
spam
this are probably voices in the wilderness
at this point.
—srs
--srs
From: Nick Hilliard
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 2:16:34 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: Serge Droz ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase
Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > and must not force the sender to use a form.
>
> It's not the job of the RIPE NCC to tell its members how to handle
> abuse reports, and it is beyond inappropriate for this working group
> to expect the RIPE NCC to withdraw numbering resources if member
> organisations
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote on 29/04/2020 17:26:
Is there anything that stops NCC from doing additional due diligence
such as validating abuse issues along with the invalid contact
information etc, before taking such a decision?
Did you ask your corporate legal counsel for their opinion on
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 29/04/2020 16:55:
So, it's the security guys, saying
This may help a bit, but won't solve all problems.
+1 here.
versus the infrastructure operators saying
Beware! This it creating huge costs
Is there anything that stops NCC from doing additional due diligence
such as validating abuse issues along with the invalid contact
information etc, before taking such a decision?
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 9:52 PM Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 29/04/2020 16:55:
> >
Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 29/04/2020 16:55:
So, it's the security guys, saying
This may help a bit, but won't solve all problems.
versus the infrastructure operators saying
Beware! This it creating huge costs and will not help at all, and
answering two mails a year will be
Date: Wednesday 29 April 2020 at 17:07
To: Michele Neylon , "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net"
, Serge Droz
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
Michele,
Ripe have many many expenses in the ~30M euros yearly expenses that are not
related t
Road, Graiguecullen, Carlow, R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Elad Cohen
Date: Wednesday 29 April 2020 at 12:18
To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" , Serge Droz
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"ab
So, it's the security guys, saying
This may help a bit, but won't solve all problems.
versus the infrastructure operators saying
Beware! This it creating huge costs and will not help at all, and
answering two mails a year will be our ruin.
Sadly, this list is run by Naj sayers.
Serge
behalf of Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 11:22 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
Hi All
I think this is a good policy.
We can always fin
e:* anti-abuse-wg *Em Nome De *Elad Cohen
> *Enviada:* 29 de abril de 2020 11:15
> *Para:* anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net; Serge Droz
> *Assunto:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
> "abuse-mailbox")
>
> �
>
> What is this ?
>
system, possible to
have public rate about abuse dealing
De: anti-abuse-wg Em Nome De Elad Cohen
Enviada: 29 de abril de 2020 11:15
Para: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net; Serge Droz
Assunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox"
ample) for the whole 5 RIRs.
>
> Respectfully,
> Elad
> --
> *From:* No No
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2020 3:18 PM
> *To:* Elad Cohen ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <
> anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Dis
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 01:44:42PM +0200, Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> >> Coming from the incident response side, I'm tiered of people constantly
> >> telling me, that issues are not their problem
> >
> > How would this proposal help with said problem?
>
> - It will catch the cases
Elad
>
>
> --
> *From:* anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2020 11:22 AM
> *To:* anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> *Subject:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
> "abuse-m
>> Coming from the incident response side, I'm tiered of people constantly
>> telling me, that issues are not their problem
>
> How would this proposal help with said problem?
>
- It will catch the cases where some miss configuration happened indeed
- It will make it impossible for orgs to
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:22:13AM +0200, Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> Coming from the incident response side, I'm tiered of people constantly
> telling me, that issues are not their problem
How would this proposal help with said problem?
It wouldn't.
If people *want* to handle
ti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
Hi All
I think this is a good policy.
We can always find use cases where it fails, but it will help in some
cases.
And if some one is not able to answer an e-mail every
Hi All
I think this is a good policy.
We can always find use cases where it fails, but it will help in some
cases.
And if some one is not able to answer an e-mail every six month, there
are probably underlying issues. Also the argument, that the bad guys
flood the mailbox is not really
No point repeating Nick's points, but I agree.
The current proposal should be abandoned - it's not getting better with each
iteration
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com
https://blacknight.blog /
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 12:31:39PM +1000, No No wrote:
> I would also like to make another suggestion:
>
> That where the RIPE has to manually verify an abuse mailbox, the costs of
> that verification should be levelled against the resource holder as a fee,
> for example: $2 per IPv4 address
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 12:25:08PM +1000, No No wrote:
> So, what are you seriously suggesting? Because these people that become
> offended at the suggestion that it's unreasonable for someone to ensure an
> email address is valid once per year (very onerous i'm sure), never really
> say what
Dear "no no",
who are you? what is your skin in this game?
Kind regards,
Job
I would also like to make another suggestion:
That where the RIPE has to manually verify an abuse mailbox, the costs of
that verification should be levelled against the resource holder as a fee,
for example: $2 per IPv4 address
and,
failing manual verification, that a countdown be implemented
In relation to the policy, where it says: "must not force the sender to use
a form."
as someone that reports phishing websites, I find the use of forms helpful,
as it ensures the company receives the report, particularly where they
implement a CAPTCHA.
To require the resource to only accept
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 08:27:32PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> The proposal needs to be abandoned.
Yep.
gert
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14
Petrit Hasani wrote on 28/04/2020 15:01:
A new version of RIPE policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of
"abuse-mailbox"", is now available for discussion.
The updated version of this policy proposal is here:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04/draft
The proposal has
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
