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

-abuse-wg on behalf of Thomas Hungenberg Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 6:37 PM To: Carlos Friaças Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 On 19.02.19 13:23, Carlos Friaças wrote: > Regarding the non-"DE" the figures are worse, right? T

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

On 19.02.19 13:23, Carlos Friaças wrote: > Regarding the non-"DE" the figures are worse, right? The statistics are based on our automated reports only. Our automated system is sending 8,000+ reports per day - but only addresses abuse contacts for networks registered with country code "DE"

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

Sorry, my eyes were wrong. I did read 2019-02 :-) Carlos On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote: I guess the subject is wrong :-)

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

FYI: Some longer-term statistics on this: Since January 2018, we have identified 157 invalid abuse contacts (our abuse reports bounced) for network objects registered with country code "DE" which we reported to RIPE NCC. RIPE NCC reached out to their members responsible for the respective

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

...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -Original Message- > From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net> On Behalf Of > Alexander Isavnin > Sent: Tuesday 27 March 2018 14:39 > To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net > Subject: Re:

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

Thanks for question, i really forgot to add important clarification paragraph for objection. On 2018-03-27 14:50:13 CET, Brian Nisbet wrote: > Alexander, > > Thanks for this. > > I'd just like to clarify something, are you objecting wholly to this proposal > because you would prefer

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

g-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Alexander Isavnin > Sent: 27 March 2018 13:46 > To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 > > Dear Brian, colleagues! > > I would like to remind about one of my objections: > This policy will n

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

Dear Brian, colleagues! I would like to remind about one of my objections: This policy will not seriously improve data quality, because it allows to check only one field in database. If one wants really to improve data quality by automated checks, more complicated policy should be developed.

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

Thomas Hungenberg(t...@cert-bund.de) on 2018.03.23 10:39:53 +0100: > > We had to deal with 40+ invalid abuse contacts only for resources > registered to German holders in the past three months. > Most messages bounced with "user unknown". > > We tried to reach out to the resource holders to get

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

Hi, On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:23:18PM +0100, Janos Zsako wrote: > At the same time, I do see some benefit in checking regularly the provided > e-mail address, because I am convinced that there will always be cases where > people simply forget to update the database. If they are reminded, they

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

eceive them. ---- Original Message ---- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 From: Janos Zsako <zs...@iszt.hu> Date: Tue, March 20, 2018 11:23 pm To: Name <phish...@storey.xxx>, anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Dear Anonymous Name, > /"And an annual ch

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

Dear Anonymous Name, /"And an annual checking would ensure that the contacts remain more up-to-date."/ Yes, an annual checking would do that. This isn't an annual checking. It involves checking if a mail server exists. I am afraid I was not clear last time. I wrote: "One can determine with

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

Name, Why are you remaining anonymous ? Hervé De : anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net] De la part de Name Envoyé : mardi 20 mars 2018 07:56 À : anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 "And an annual checking would e

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

- Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 From: <herve.clem...@orange.com> Date: Tue, March 20, 2018 3:52 am To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> As co-authors, if we propose this policy, that's because we

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

-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net] De la part de ox Envoyé : lundi 19 mars 2018 03:23 À : JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:43:54 + JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse

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

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:43:54 + JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > I'm not a lawyer, but deal a lot with them, and I'm sure anyway, > there are more informed voices even from the NCC that can confirm, > and actually it will be interesting to confirm. >

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

Hi, On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 01:29:14PM +0100, Karl-Josef Ziegler wrote: > Andre Ox wrote: > > > But having some sort of policy is a start, even though > > what we are actually ending up with is not much at all and even then > > there are those that think even having a watery (watered down, > >

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

e-wg <anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Erik Bais <eb...@a2b-internet.com> Fecha: domingo, 18 de marzo de 2018, 13:22 Para: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 I still have som

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

I still have some serious concerns about this proposal. I wonder how this might have an effect on the conduit role of (transit)-networks. And if the RIPE NCC will be requested to report (by the community or by legal court actions) or will be held liable in some way shape or form for the

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

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:52:06 +0100 Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 10:53:55AM +0200, ox wrote: > > To answer the question though: This proposal does make the world a > > better place. > > If a resource holder wishes to be allocated scarce public resources > >

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

still be contacting as many people as they were before this policy (which doesn't even need to be a policy) will be introduced. Original Message ---- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 From: Gert Doering <g...@space.net> Date: Sat, March 17, 2018 9:52 pm T

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

Hi, On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 10:53:55AM +0200, ox wrote: > To answer the question though: This proposal does make the world a > better place. > > If a resource holder wishes to be allocated scarce public resources > such a resource holder should also be responsible about the operations > of such

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

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 08:43:45 +0100 Gert Doering wrote: > Reading comments like *this* as an argument *for* the proposal makes > me wonder if I should reconsider being neutral about it. > What Malcolm said is something that carefully needs to be considered: > what is the real goal

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

Hi, On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 04:33:47PM -0700, Name wrote: > So he has no basis of objection, but don't even think > of implementing something that might actually go towards helping the internet > in the future, because it's a slippery slope and Adolf Hitler 2.0 will reign > supreme, even

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

then resource owners might actually have to do some work. What a horrible thought. Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 From: "Sascha Luck [ml]" <a...@c4inet.net> Date: Sat, March 17, 2018 1:48 am To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nis...@h

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

ent: Thursday 15 March 2018 17:04 >> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 >> >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: >> >This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there

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

@linx.net> > Sent: Friday 16 March 2018 09:28 > To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nis...@heanet.ie>; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 > > On 16/03/2018 08:59, Brian Nisbet wrote: > >> Nothing, and I didn't state that it wa

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

> -Original Message- > From: Sascha Luck [ml] <a...@c4inet.net> > Sent: Thursday 15 March 2018 18:45 > To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nis...@heanet.ie> > Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 > > On Thu, Mar

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

On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:44:44 + "Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:08:29PM +, Brian Nisbet wrote: > >For instance, what about the suggested implementation is onerous or > >oppressive? > Nothing, and I didn't state that it was. The problem is that,

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

me of the national rifle association in the USA. 30 people get killed in a school, and asking for a basic background check for a firearm purchaser is simply too much to ask for. Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 From: "Sascha Luc

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

day 15 March 2018 17:04 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote: >This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there >are many things that can (should) be improved,

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

On 14/03/2018 13:32, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Please let me reiterate that the RIPE NCC will not activate the > closure procedure simply for failure to maintain the "abuse-mailbox:" > attribute. > > The closure procedure could be activated if the resource holder refuses > to provide correct abuse

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

oes it need a change in policy if it's implemented as is? How does it change a single thing? Original Message ---- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps From: Janos Zsako <zs...@iszt.hu> Date: Wed, March 14, 2018 11:29 pm To: Name <ph

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

brian.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: Brian Nisbet Sent: Wednesday 14 March 2018 11:31 To: 'Name' <phish...@storey.xxx>; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: SPAM-heanet-- RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Ste