[anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c policy proposal in LACNIC

Hi, As I just indicated in the meeting, I've submitted a policy proposal in LACNIC (AfriNIC as well but missed the deadline for the last meeting, and coming also to APNIC in a matter of days). As I'm planning to submit it also to this WG, I will love if the people can take a look at the

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] GDPR - positive effects on email abuse

Whois, as everything in the life, has good and bad things. Against: Privacy invaded. In fact, when you register a new domain and you associate a visible email to it, in a matter of hours, you get spam. Pro: If it is a real email with humans behind, it facilitates the resolution of abuse

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] GDPR - positive effects on email abuse

ail server will use DNS to find them. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: anti-abuse-wg en nombre de ox Organización: ox.co.za Fecha: martes, 29 de mayo de 2018, 15:57 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] GDPR - positive effects on email abuse

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

Despite what was said in the meeting, It looks like I'm not the only one then thinking that we should do the human verification ... Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Marco Schmidt Fecha: viernes, 19 de

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [FWD: Re: [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)]

I’ve been there … people using emails in the abuse “distribution list” that do not longer exist and anti-spam tools that filter the abuse emails because of course, they contain the info about the spam itself. This bring me to further improvement in the policy proposal … “the abuse-c

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

(click a checkbox) that he will > monitor the abuse-mailbox account on a regular basis and take appropriate > action to solve reported abuse cases. > > > - Thomas > > CERT-Bund Incident Response & Malware Analysis Team > > >

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

tion, solving a captcha and a tickbox is a great idea my 1c Andre On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:29:42 +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > I also think that Thomas suggestion of a checkbox agreeing with > reg

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

ntact". Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de ox <an...@ox.co.za> Organización: ox.co.za Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 10:47 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Asunto:

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

Agree. What I care is people reporting abuses and never getting the problem solved. If you are an LIR you're responsible for possible abuses to third parties, and you must respond to them. Your cost for resolving those abuses is your problem, because is your organization who takes advantage of

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

I agree that exaggeration is not useful, and probably we need to have several clear attempts before turning down a contract, BUT, if we are talking about proportionality, there are MANY cases of abuses where the responsible LIRs aren't responding at all, and this means a very big harm to the

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02

Hi Erik, I think any policy or membership agreements will not affect the liability of the NCC in front of third parties because operational misconducts of any provider. Is the same way as if we believe that we can be blamed for fake info at the whois, spam, criminal cases, or whatever, unless

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?

My personal view on this (not as a co-author now), and sorry to make it long, but I guess is important and many new people contributing in the list that we never heard about before and I hope this helps many people, as a frequent participant and contributor to discussions. I know very well the

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?

As said in my previous email, if we take that strictly, then we will never have any IETF document or RIRs policy proposals reaching consensus. When I agree and will not provide any "extra" for that was has been already said (because the policy text or previous emails), I just do +1. Or do you

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Sorry a bit congested with work overload since yesterday (I will try to respond to other emails later/tomrorow, but this one caught my attention). I've the feeling that Piotr is looking for a much shorter time frame, and I think I will agree. I'm not ever sure if this is related to

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

Exactly! If customers, employees, visitors, students, etc., are misusing the network (for example using it for spam, DDoS, child pornography, etc.), they are typically acting against the contract arrangements (AUP). If you've a bad contract that's a different problem, but even in that case,

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

Hi Lu, El 23/3/19 11:30, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Lu Heng" escribió: When you stealing electricity the electricity company will not cut your electricity at home but report you to the policy. Depends on the contract. In my country, they are able to do, even at the same time all

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

Hi Lu, El 23/3/19 11:04, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Lu Heng" escribió: Nick are making good point. How about murder is a policy violation? How about rape is a policy violation? If you have in your contract an AUP that prohibits illegal activities (DDoS, spam, child

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

El 23/3/19 12:05, "Lu Heng" escribió: On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:58 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: El 23/3/19 11:39, "Lu Heng" escribió: On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:35 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: Hi Lu, El

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Hi Töma, El 23/3/19 13:25, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Töma Gavrichenkov" escribió: Hi all, > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-03, "BGP Hijacking is > a RIPE Policy Violation", is now available for discussion. Sorry if the issues I'm raising were already addressed

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

. It was mention because the case of one of those craft beer producers that got 50% of their shares acquired. Courts of course, respected the decision. Regards, Jordi El 23/3/19 12:22, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg" escribió: El 23/

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

El 23/3/19 12:17, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 12:27:32PM +0200, ac wrote: > On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:04:22 +0800 > Lu Heng wrote: > > > > It???s very much like electricity company tell you if you do something

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

El 23/3/19 12:13, "Lu Heng" escribió: On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 19:05 Lu Heng wrote: On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:58 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: El 23/3/19 11:39, "Lu Heng" escribió: On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:35 JORDI PAL

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

at, Mar 23, 2019 at 19:37 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: El 23/3/19 12:13, "Lu Heng" escribió: On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 19:05 Lu Heng wrote: On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:58 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: El 23/3/19 11:39, "Lu Heng" escr

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

Hi Nick, El 23/3/19 12:32, "Nick Hilliard" escribió: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 22/03/2019 22:55: > The legal bindings of the NCC already have that for those that don’t > follow existing policies, don’t pay bills, etc. So, the proposal

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

El 23/3/19 11:39, "Lu Heng" escribió: On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:35 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: Hi Lu, El 23/3/19 11:30, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Lu Heng" escribió: When you stealing electricity the electricity company will not c

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

El 23/3/19 12:46, "Sascha Luck [ml]" escribió: On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 12:29:21PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >I learnt that there is an association for craft beer producers and one of the rules was that if you have a sharing from an industrial

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Fat fingers: Our intent is NOT to "stop" the attack with the claim (not efficient at all), but to allow to be reviewed in order to avoid it, in the future, if possible from the same actors. Regards, Jordi El 23/3/19 13:44, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Astroturfing?

El 3/4/19 15:05, "Sascha Luck [ml]" escribió: On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 01:18:10PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >"Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement" I read that as those opposing should explain why and provide inp

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

El 23/3/19 16:49, "Nick Hilliard" escribió: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 23/03/2019 11:52: > El 23/3/19 12:32, "Nick Hilliard" escribió: > 1. it's not the job of the RIPE NCC to make up for a short-fall of civil >

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

In my country, and I'm sure in many others, if the police (either individual members or as an authority) or anyone, even if he is a judge, from the government, is doing illegal actions, spying, including taking control of persons or organization computers/networks, etc., will be judged and

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

El 23/3/19 22:33, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette" escribió: In message =?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=B6ma_Gavrichenkov?= wrote: >2. OTOH the ultimate result (membership cancellation) may be seen as a >very heavy punishment. Did you have some

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 and over-reach

El 23/3/19 23:40, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette" escribió: In message <6179dc11-f299-c076-0ae1-2f2d22eb6...@foobar.org>, Nick Hilliard wrote: >If there were legislation and enforcement in this area, we wouldn't be >having this conversation.

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?

Speaking in general and not just about this case. All the RIRs membership contracts mandate following the policies, otherwise there is a contractual breach and the "services" (read resources as well) can be canceled/reclaimed. At least, this is my reading. So, no need to have an explicit text

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Hi Hank, El 20/3/19 8:53, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Hank Nussbacher" escribió: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:06:11AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> >> More or

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Hi Sascha, El 20/3/19 15:14, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Sascha Luck [ml]" escribió: All, On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 01:41:22PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote: >A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-03, "BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation", is now available for discussion.

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Definitively, authors will try to draft something for that, but specific text suggestions to the list are always very welcome ! (actually … please do so) At the moment I can think in the line: “Direct peers allowing the hijack thru their networks will be warned the first time, but may be

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Hi Sascha, El 20/3/19 16:09, "Sascha Luck [ml]" escribió: Hi Jordi, On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 03:45:24PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >Service Agreement. This I consider harmful to the standing of >the RIPE NCC as an impartia

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Hi Brian, I'm fine moving that thread to NCC Services and I know how complex that will be. So, repeating my question to all the participants here: Can we agree at least that we should not have text regarding that in the policy proposal under discussion (also considering Brian input)? I hope

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

I agree that we could find a way to refine the text to include also the ASN hijacks. Regards, Jordi El 20/3/19 12:10, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Richard Clayton" escribió: In message , Carlos Friaças writes >The misuse of AS numbers was not seen (maybe until now...)

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Hi Hank, El 20/3/19 9:15, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Hank Nussbacher" escribió: On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:53:02AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >>> So that's a fairly effective way to sanction abusive behaviour.

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Hi Furio, If we can find a non-contentious way to word it, I will be in favor of this. Note that in order to speed-up the conversation, the co-authors are not coordinating responses, so I mean we don't necessarily agree, but this is part of the fun of this discussion! Regards, Jordi El

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [routing-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation) to be discussed on Anti-Abuse Working Group Mailing List

or not) could not be declared as “on purpose”. On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 4:14 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: Hi Andrey, While it looks, in a first sight, a very good idea, if a neighbor ASN fails to do the filtering (for whatever reason, not necessarily on purpose), should we

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [routing-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation) to be discussed on Anti-Abuse Working Group Mailing List

Hi Daniel, Responses below, in-line. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Daniel Suchy Fecha: martes, 19 de marzo de 2019, 14:15 Para: Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [routing-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation) to

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

deliberated hijacks cases“ Regards, Jordi El 22/3/19 12:19, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg" escribió: On Fri, 22 Mar 2019, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:12:02PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via &g

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Hi Erik,  Using > because for some reason this email is not being automatically "quoted" correctly in my email client. Regards, Jordi El 21/3/19 23:54, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Erik Bais" escribió: Dear WG, I've read the proposal and the discussion that has been

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Hi Sascha, El 22/3/19 12:07, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Sascha Luck [ml]" escribió: On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:12:02PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >3) We may need to refine the text, but the suspected hijacker, in case of sponso

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Top posting to make it short. Not sure to understand "with teeth" (and google didn't helped). Please understand that there is a lot of people who is not native English, so this kind of expressions make it difficult to catch everything. While, I basically agree with Carlos, have some additional

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

Hi Töma, It has been already proposed/discussed in every RIR, which appropriate changes, and in some cases, there is a need for editorial review, etc., so not sure when it will be published at each one (LACNIC probably the first, ARIN next, and so on), and we already considered some of the

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

), or there are other differences (other policies affected, service agreements, membership by-laws, etc.), even cultural differences, etc. Regards, Jordi El 22/3/19 17:33, "Töma Gavrichenkov" escribió: On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:24 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] What if a regional Internet Registry organization lost its authority?

Hi, This is just an issue in LACNIC, in all the regions we have similar situations, and I believe that if there is a mandatory abuse email, and it is not up-to-date, then the LIR is not following the policies, and consequently it is not following the service contract, and could get their

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)

El 18/4/19 9:15, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg" escribió: Hi, On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:39 AM Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg > wrote: >> And how will a dutch court

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Nick, As it has been observed several times, the actual validation system is extremely weak and very easy to avoid, so 99% useless. If I put in my abuse-c your email (just an example). The validation will pass, and you will never notice that I've used your email to fake the system. So,

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Internet is global, so local customs are from the "Internet planet". El 17/5/19 12:16, "Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:13:12PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Anyway, this is a curious thing ... last week I was asked in the LACNIC meeting policy

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

My email client doesn't allow me to do it in a different way (Outlook for Mac). If somebody is able to help, I'm happy. I can't change my client, for different and long to explain business reasons. Anyway, this is a curious thing ... last week I was asked in the LACNIC meeting policy session

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Nick, El 18/5/19 15:38, "Nick Hilliard" escribió: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 18/05/2019 14:32: > This will not work. > > Allowing every resource holder in the world to use their own form means > that you need to develop tons

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

ly {other specification, maybe with URL} {api with url} {'whatever'} This would be more valuable for the whole global abuse handling process than the burdensome time waster that is now proposed. ​-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221 On Sat, 18-05-2019 13h 31min, JORDI PALET MA

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Töma, El 18/5/19 16:25, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Töma Gavrichenkov" escribió: On Thu, May 16, 2019, 11:42 PM Alex de Joode wrote: It seems you want to verify that a human reads the abuse box. This is actually a very bright proposal in view of the next generation economy.

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] diff online 2019-03 v1 vs v2

Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > On 23/05/2019, 09:00, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg" wrote: > >Hi all, > >As v2 of 2019-03 is not yet published, according to the PDP, until

[anti-abuse-wg] diff online 2019-03 v1 vs v2

Hi all, As v2 of 2019-03 is not yet published, according to the PDP, until the impact analysis is completed, I've published a diff online at: https://www.diffchecker.com/Fy6z4VYH Regards, Jordi ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Alex, The intent of this policy is to ensure that the validation process is useful, and that means ensuring that the inbox is working, real (not from somebody else), monitored for abuse reports (automatically is ok if it really works, but there must be a way for human participation), and

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

El 18/5/19 9:56, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:02:48AM +0100, Carlos Friaças wrote: > > There is no indication that the complications Jordi is proposing are > > an actual improvement in any metric, except "human life

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

El 18/5/19 10:35, "Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 10:28:45AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > So, please state *first* what is wrong or insufficient with the current > process, and why these added com

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

El 17/5/19 10:41, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg" escribió: Hi All, I'm not sure about the 6 month period (vs. 12 months), and probably some details can be improved in further versions, but i do support this proposal, which is clearly

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Gert, El 21/5/19 14:37, "Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, you cannot know if someone complies with the policy in good faith or not. And this is exactly the same for any other policies that we have adopted, and that doesn't preclude us to adopt them, because in any membership

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

El 21/5/19 15:32, "Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, the whole point of your policy is the underlying assumption that people are *not* acting in good faith, so why all of a sudden assume they are? Is in the other way around. If you're acting in good faith, you should not have a

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Rich, El 21/5/19 9:31, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Rich Kulawiec" escribió: This is a bad idea and should be abandoned. The goal is fine: everyone/everything should have a valid abuse@ address per RFC 2142, decades of best practices, and inherent accountability to

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

, as this is not necessarily linear. Regards, Jordi El 18/5/19 19:07, "Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 10:43:11AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > My team has nearly sent out 6000 abuse reports (only about intrusion > at

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

10:38:46AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > I have an idea. > > I will set up a service where everyone can have an e-mail address which > will totally follow everything you propose as validation mechanism - like, > cl

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Gert, El 21/5/19 16:07, "Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, you are comparing the claimed cost savings on the side of the reporters with the very real extra costs incurred on the side of the abuse handlers. You can't do that, and come up with a positive result. The

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Tarass, El 21/5/19 16:18, "Taras Heichenko" escribió: > On May 21, 2019, at 18:35, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > > > > El 21/5/19 15:32, "Gert Doering" escribió: > >Hi, &

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Angel, Thanks a lot for the inputs, see below in-line. Regards, Jordi El 16/5/19 16:36, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ángel González Berdasco" escribió: Marco Schmidt writes: > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of "abuse-mailbox"",

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] standard for abuse reporting (was: VoIP)

Hi all, To avoid unnecessary noise in the list, I think we should handle this in pvt. At the moment, I've got emails from Andre, Angel and Jan about this. I will try to work during this weekend in investigating if there is already an IETF WG that may be a fit for this work, or alternatively

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] VoIP

Reading the article in a minute ! However, as an information pointer I've some data ... I've an VM with asterisk at home, and every day I've to ban (I use fail2ban to do it automatically after 3 failed attempts from the same IP), average about 20 IPs attempting to use my SIP service to my

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] VoIP

escribió: On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:06:39 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > Reading the article in a minute ! > However, as an information pointer I've some data ... > I've an VM with asterisk at home, and every day I've to ban (I use > fail2ban

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Reporting abuse to OVH -- don't bother

In my experience, OVH is one of the larger worlwide host of spammers, DDoS, intrusion attempts (SIP, SSH, IMAP, SMTP, etc., etc.), etc., together with cloudstar.is. Any criminal action you can think off … sure a IPs from OVH or Cloudstar are involved! I’m sure there are many other, but in

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Reporting abuse to OVH -- don't bother

Tried that also, and doesn't work for OVH, for Digital Ocean some times. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 13/2/20 5:27, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Fi Shing" escribió: All OVH and DigitalOcean abuse reports must be submitted via the abuse reporting forms on the website, or they

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Warren, When some operators aren't responding to abuse cases, or when they are bouncing emails, or you get a response from someone telling "sorry I'm not the right contact for this, the email is mistaken", and many other similar situations ... the operator is telling you "we don't care

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

This is the key point. We already agreed to have a mandatory abuse-c. We can change our mind and make it optional. But one way or the other, should be a *real* one. A validation that can be faked just using (for example) Carlos email, is not a good procedure. It doesn't make sense at all. We

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Ronald, El 14/1/20 13:10, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette" escribió: In message <30174d32-225f-467e-937a-5bc42650f...@consulintel.es>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >I think if we try to agree on those ratings,

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Exactly 2 minutes a year (1 minute each time you click the link in the email from RIPE NCC). And because you invest 2 minutes a year, you will save a lot of time (many hours/days) yourself, trying to report abuses to invalid mailboxes! El 15/1/20 9:24, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Serge Droz

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Leo, El 15/1/20 18:09, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Leo Vegoda" escribió: On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:16 AM Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg wrote: [...] > - Lastly: It makes our life as Incident responders easier to have a > uniform way of sending reports, even

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

What we do today is not a validation if I can use Gert or Serge or any "null" email in all my abuse contacts and nobody notice it, and then you start getting abuse reports from other folks ... This is creating lots of wasted time to both you and the abuse case reporters. El 15/1/20 9:59,

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Carlos, El 15/1/20 22:58, "Carlos Friaças" escribió: Hi, On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > In my opinion, the actual situation is the worst. We are validating over "nothing".

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >>Section 3.0 part 3. Why on earth should it take 15 days for >>anyone to respond to an email?? Things on the Internet happen >>in millseconds. If a provider is unable to respond to an i

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

In my opinion, the actual situation is the worst. We are validating over "nothing". We don't know how many of the "validated" mailboxes are real, or even read, full, etc. I will prefer a mandatory abuse-c which is validated in the way I'm proposing, as it is being done in ARIN and APNIC and

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

t;Job Snijders" escribió: On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:41:54PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > Exactly 2 minutes a year (1 minute each time you click the link in the > email from RIPE NCC). > > And because you invest 2 minutes a year, you w

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Nick, Not really, I think you're reading a different text ... I'm not intending to ask RIPE to verify if the operators resolve the abuse cases. The point here is to amend the existing policy to do a *good* validation of the abuse mailbox. The actual policy only makes a "technical"

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

icy, right? But if the ISP is not reacting at all, he is risking that other operators block him, right? That’s why I still believe that abuse-c must be mandatory, unless you clearly state that you ignore abuse cases. Best, Volker Am 16.01.2020 um 15:52 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg:

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

El 16/1/20 15:25, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette" escribió: In message , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >I'm sure that this is the same in every EU country. Can we agree on that? Quite certainly not! Doing so wo

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Sara, While I fully agree with Sergio and yourself, the issue here is that this part of your text “Complete, accurate information goes hand in hand with a duty of care, of promptly taking actions against abuse, and should be accompanied by a social responsibility of trying to make

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Let’s try to see it from another perspective. If you’re an electricity provider, and one of your customers injects 1.000 v into the network and thus create damages to other customers (even from other electricity providers), the electricity provider must have the means to resolve the

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

internet is a "wretched hive of scum and villainy" the powers that be should allocate enough resources to deal with the problem. ​-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode On Thu, 16-01-2020 17h 17min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: H

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Volker, I don’t agree with that, because: I believe the electricity sample I provided proves otherwise. My contract is with the electricity provider (the Internet provider), so I need to complain to them and they need to follow the chain. For a victim, to complain directly to the customer

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Alex, El 16/1/20 16:30, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alex de Joode" escribió: Hi Sara, The issue with your statement below is that RIPE NCC cannot (legally, under Dutch contract law) disconnect resources if a resource holder (or more likely his customer) does not (properly)

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

ara.nl | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode On Thu, 16-01-2020 15h 18min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg  wrote: Let’s try to see it from another perspective.   If you’re an electricity provider, and one of your customers injects 1.000 v into the network and thus create damages to other cus

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Randy, As I just said, ideally we should ask for abuse-c reports to be procesed, but I know many folks don't like it. But at least, we need to make sure that if you have an abuse-c, it is a "real" and "working" one so you're able to actually send the reports there. If ignored, that's

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Ronald, El 13/1/20 22:34, "Ronald F. Guilmette" escribió: In message <6afc7d17-bac4-464c-8af8-2ad852d39...@consulintel.es>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >I'm happy to hear other inputs, stats, data, etc. Having only just read the proposal, my comments are few:

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Leo, El 13/1/20 18:16, "Leo Vegoda" escribió: Hi Jordi, all, On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:58 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: Hi all, I'm working in a new version of the proposal 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox"). In the last discus

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

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

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] @EXT: RE: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

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

  1   2   >