Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 5:29 PM Mark Andrews wrote: > Actually if ARIN doesn’t pull the resources, after notification and a grace > period to > get them fixed, then what is the point in writing policy requiring that they > be up to > date and working? There needs to be checks and balances for

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019, Bruce H McIntosh wrote: On 8/12/19 3:26 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: Half my grump with Amazon here is that they have, for all practical purposes, unlimited money and unlimited personnel. They should be the go-to example for How To Do It Right. They should be the model (or

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 8/13/19 3:10 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > With a global company, there's no such thing > as a local natural monopoly in play; how would > you assign oversight to a global entity? Which > "public" would be the ones being protected? > The city of Seattle, WA, where Amazon is > headquartered? The

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:31 PM Stephen Satchell wrote: > On 8/9/19 4:03 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > > ...apparently Amazon has become a public utility > > now? > > > > I look forward with bemusement to the PUC > > tariff filings for AWS pricing. ^_^;; > > [...] > > And it wouldn't be the PUC,

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 12 Aug 2019, at 3:26 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:12:48AM -0700, Stephen Satchell wrote: >> "The rules" have been around for years, and are codified in the RFCs >> that are widely published and available to all at zero cost. (That >> wasn't always true, as it

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 8/12/19 3:26 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: Half my grump with Amazon here is that they have, for all practical purposes, unlimited money and unlimited personnel. They should be the go-to example for How To Do It Right. They should be the model (or one of the models) that we're all trying to

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

> On Aug 12, 2019, at 3:52 PM, Henry Yen wrote: > > ftp://rfc-editor.org ftp://rfc-editor.org still mounts perfectly well using macOS Finder but shows to be now devoid of useful content via ftp. James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com GPG

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 15:26:22PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > I also share your recollection of > an earlier FTP site but a few minutes of checking old documents hasn't turned > up its name and it's fallen out of long-term memory, at least for the moment. ftp://rfc-editor.org (also via

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:12:48AM -0700, Stephen Satchell wrote: > "The rules" have been around for years, and are codified in the RFCs > that are widely published and available to all at zero cost. (That > wasn't always true, as it wasn't until the DDN Protocol Handbook volumes > were published

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 8/9/19 4:03 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > ...apparently Amazon has become a public utility > now? > > I look forward with bemusement to the PUC > tariff filings for AWS pricing. ^_^;; Don't scoff too hard. How do you think that telephone service became a utility? Utilities didn't grow on

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 2:16 AM Scott Christopher wrote: > > [...] > It's not about $BIGCORP having lots of corporate lawyers imposing its will > on the small guys - it's about Amazon's role as a public utility, upon > which many many many important things depend. > > S.C. > > I must have missed

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

[Speaking ONLY FOR MYSELF AS AN INDIVIDUAL.] On Aug 4, 2019, at 8:15 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 5:17 AM Scott Christopher wrote: > John Curran wrote: > > ... > >> As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability of the >> ARIN registration services

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Rubens Kuhl wrote: > I don't think that "companies with tons of lawyers" should be a factor in > making resource allocation policies. But considering either small or big > networks, an escalation path would reduce friction and increase overall > compliance... for instance, failure to have

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 5:17 AM Scott Christopher wrote: > John Curran wrote: > > ... > > As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability of the > ARIN registration services agreements in this regard – so please carefully > consider proposed policy both from the overall

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 4 Aug 2019, at 4:16 AM, Scott Christopher mailto:s...@ottie.org>> wrote: ... What I have been saying is that if ARIN revoked Amazon's resources because of a trivial matter of bounced Abuse PoC, even if the small "community" of network operators and other interested parties passed a rule

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

John Curran wrote: ... > As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability of the > ARIN registration services agreements in this regard – so please carefully > consider proposed policy both from the overall community benefit being > sought, and from the implications faced

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 1:25 AM Joe Provo wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 04:02:58PM +0300, T??ma Gavrichenkov wrote: > I think they will be planning to reach out to ARIN with the same text > > right after the RIPE process ends this way or another. > > Uh, ARIN-2019-5 has been in the ARIN PDP

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 8/3/19 9:15 PM, John Curran wrote: > As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability > of the ARIN registration services agreements in this regard – so > please carefully consider proposed policy both from the overall > community benefit being sought, and from the

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 31 Jul 2019, at 5:31 PM, Scott Christopher mailto:s...@ottie.org>> wrote: ... What I have been saying is that, if ARIN did something so brazen as to revoke Amazon's resources because of some bounced PoC emails, the impact would be *dramatic* and likely lead to the end of ARIN. Just think

Re: really amazon?

On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:54:07AM +0300, Scott Christopher wrote: > Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:13:48PM +0300, Scott Christopher wrote: > > > Because it will get spammed if publicly listed in WHOIS. > > > > Yes. It will. Are you telling us that Amazon, with its

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Actually if ARIN doesn’t pull the resources, after notification and a grace period to get them fixed, then what is the point in writing policy requiring that they be up to date and working? There needs to be checks and balances for systems to work. The only thing is what should the grace

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 04:02:58PM +0300, T??ma Gavrichenkov wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:20 PM Christoffer Hansen > wrote: > > Imagine ARIN did a take from RIPE NCC [Policy Proposal Idea?] and a > > policy came into effect of validating ALL 'OrgAbuseEmail' objects listed > > in the ARIN

Re: really amazon?

Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:13:48PM +0300, Scott Christopher wrote: > > Because it will get spammed if publicly listed in WHOIS. > > Yes. It will. Are you telling us that Amazon, with its enormous financial > and personnel resources, doesn't have ANYBODY on staff who

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Sandra Murphy wrote: > Scott, you might want to read "Policy Development Process (PDP)” > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ in order to discover just > exactly what John means by “If the community developed a policy”. > > You might also want to join the Public Policy Mailing List,

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Scott, you might want to read "Policy Development Process (PDP)” https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ in order to discover just exactly what John means by “If the community developed a policy”. You might also want to join the Public Policy Mailing List, arin-p...@arin.net, to discuss.

Re: really amazon?

On Jul 31, 2019, at 1:13 PM, Scott Christopher wrote: > > Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:36:08 -, Richard Williams via NANOG said: >> >>> To contact AWS SES about spam or abuse the correct email address is >>> ab...@amazonaws.com >> >> You know that, and I know that,

Re: really amazon?

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:13:48PM +0300, Scott Christopher wrote: > Because it will get spammed if publicly listed in WHOIS. Yes. It will. Are you telling us that Amazon, with its enormous financial and personnel resources, doesn't have ANYBODY on staff who knows how to properly manage an

Re: really amazon?

On 7/31/19 1:28 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 23:13 +0300, Scott Christopher wrote: >> >> Because it will get spammed if publicly listed in WHOIS. > > I will take that at *least* as ironic as you meant it. I don't know about your network, but I have five role mail accounts,

Re: really amazon?

On 7/31/19 12:04 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:36:08 -, Richard Williams via NANOG said: > >> To contact AWS SES about spam or abuse the correct email address is >> ab...@amazonaws.com > > You know that, and I know that, but why doesn't the person at AWS whose job it

Re: really amazon?

On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 23:13 +0300, Scott Christopher wrote: > > Because it will get spammed if publicly listed in WHOIS. I will take that at *least* as ironic as you meant it. b. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: really amazon?

On 2019-07-31 23:13, Scott Christopher wrote: Valdis Klētnieks wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:36:08 -, Richard Williams via NANOG said: > To contact AWS SES about spam or abuse the correct email address is ab...@amazonaws.com You know that, and I know that, but why doesn't the person at

Re: really amazon?

Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:36:08 -, Richard Williams via NANOG said: > > > To contact AWS SES about spam or abuse the correct email address is > > ab...@amazonaws.com > > You know that, and I know that, but why doesn't the person at AWS whose job it > is to keep the

Re: really amazon?

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:36:08 -, Richard Williams via NANOG said: > To contact AWS SES about spam or abuse the correct email address is > ab...@amazonaws.com You know that, and I know that, but why doesn't the person at AWS whose job it is to keep the ARIN info correct and up to date know

Re: really amazon?

To contact AWS SES about spam or abuse the correct email address is ab...@amazonaws.com On Wednesday, July 31, 2019, 9:53:59 AM EDT, Rich Kulawiec wrote: Yes, this is egregious, but on the other hand even when the abuse reporting mechanisms are working my experience has been that

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

> OK, I'll bite. What reasons are they giving for their resistance? (And > if known, > what are the *real* reasons if different?) https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2018-October/thread.html -- Steve P

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

John Curran wrote: > Scott - > > Alas, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of ARIN… we > don’t do anything other than implement policies that this community wants. If > the community developed a policy to require Abuse POC’s validation, and said > policy made clear that

Re: really amazon?

Yes, this is egregious, but on the other hand even when the abuse reporting mechanisms are working my experience has been that they emit no response (other than -- maybe -- boilerplate) and take no action, so it's not terribly surprising. ---rsk

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:04 PM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: > > OK, I'll bite. What reasons are they giving for their resistance? > > Here's a good place to start: https://ripe78.ripe.net/archives/steno/37/ > ^F, "You're done", enjoy! P.S. Suddenly there's an important mistake in the transcript:

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 3:35 PM Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:02:58 +0300, Töma Gavrichenkov said: > > such a policy (2019-04) is still in a discussion > > phase in RIPE and has already seen significant resistance. > > OK, I'll bite. What reasons are they giving for their

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:02:58 +0300, T�ma Gavrichenkov said: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:20 PM Christoffer Hansen > wrote: > > Imagine ARIN did a take from RIPE NCC [Policy Proposal Idea?] and a > > policy came into effect of validating ALL 'OrgAbuseEmail' objects listed > > in the ARIN database.

Re: really amazon?

- Original Message - > From: "Christoffer Hansen" > On 30/07/2019 01:03, Dan Hollis wrote: >> Jul 29 09:47:27 yuri sendmail[14067]: x6TGlQe4014062: >> to=, ctladdr= >> (500/500), delay=00:00:01, xdelay=00:00:01, mailer=esmtp92, >> relay=amazon-smtp.amazon.com. [207.171.188.4], dsn=5.1.1,

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:20 PM Christoffer Hansen wrote: > Imagine ARIN did a take from RIPE NCC [Policy Proposal Idea?] and a > policy came into effect of validating ALL 'OrgAbuseEmail' objects listed > in the ARIN database. Just to be precise, such a policy (2019-04) is still in a discussion

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 30 Jul 2019, at 6:44 AM, Scott Christopher mailto:s...@ottie.org>> wrote: On 30/07/2019 11:59, Chris Knipe wrote: Then update your ARIN records to reflect that. Fully agree with Dan on this one. Imagine ARIN did a take from RIPE NCC [Policy Proposal Idea?] and a policy came into effect of

Re: really amazon?

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mel Beckman wrote: > So why not just say so? Because at the times of USENIX the very next reply to such a message would've been "what are the steps to reproduce your problem". -- Töma

Not noreply autoresponder (WAS: really amazon?)

On 30/07/2019 13:56, Robert McKay wrote: > Even if it existed it would just be an autoresponder telling you that > your email wasn't read and to go resubmit the report on their website. Both yes and now. See below:* """ We are sorry to hear that you received unwanted email through Amazon SES.

Re: really amazon?

On 2019-07-30 10:59, Chris Knipe wrote: On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:45 AM Scott Christopher wrote: Dan Hollis wrote: RCPT To: <<< 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected. 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown DATA <<< 503 #5.5.1 RCPT first Try j...@amazon.com -- S.C. Then update your ARIN records to

Re: really amazon?

On 30/07/2019 01:03, Dan Hollis wrote: > Jul 29 09:47:27 yuri sendmail[14067]: x6TGlQe4014062: > to=, ctladdr= > (500/500), delay=00:00:01, xdelay=00:00:01, mailer=esmtp92, > relay=amazon-smtp.amazon.com. [207.171.188.4], dsn=5.1.1, stat=User unknown ... :wondering: Works fine for me. If sending

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

I thought it was already a requirement that the POC info had to be validated once a year and accurate? > On Jul 30, 2019, at 6:44 AM, Scott Christopher wrote: > > Christoffer Hansen wrote: > >>> On 30/07/2019 11:59, Chris Knipe wrote: >>> >>> Then update your ARIN records to reflect that.

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Christoffer Hansen wrote: > On 30/07/2019 11:59, Chris Knipe wrote: > > > Then update your ARIN records to reflect that. Fully agree with Dan on > > this one. > > > > Imagine ARIN did a take from RIPE NCC [Policy Proposal Idea?] and a > policy came into effect of validating ALL

User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 30/07/2019 11:59, Chris Knipe wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:45 AM Scott Christopher wrote: >> Dan Hollis wrote: >>> >>> RCPT To: >>> <<< 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected. >>> 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown >>> >>> DATA >>> <<< 503 #5.5.1 RCPT first >> >> Try jeff () amazon >> > Then update your

Re: really amazon?

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:45 AM Scott Christopher wrote: > Dan Hollis wrote: > > > >>> RCPT To: > > <<< 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected. > > 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown > > >>> DATA > > <<< 503 #5.5.1 RCPT first > > Try j...@amazon.com > > -- > S.C. > Then update your ARIN records to reflect that.

Re: really amazon?

Dan Hollis wrote: > >>> RCPT To: > <<< 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected. > 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown > >>> DATA > <<< 503 #5.5.1 RCPT first Try j...@amazon.com -- S.C.

Re: really amazon?

t the deal is than “Really, amazon?” -mel On Jul 29, 2019, at 4:03 PM, Dan Hollis wrote: Amazon, you really should know better. Source ip: 54.240.4.4 https://search.arin.net/rdap/?query=54.240.4.4 Source Registry ARIN Kind Group Full Name Amazon SES Abuse Handle ASA152-ARIN Email email-ab...@

Re: really amazon?

So why not just say so? -mel > On Jul 29, 2019, at 4:12 PM, John Von Essen wrote: > > Really??? You cant parse “User unknown”... > > Dan is simply pointed out how ridiculous it is that amazon lists a > non-existent email address with Arin for abuse. > >

Re: really amazon?

Really??? You cant parse “User unknown”... Dan is simply pointed out how ridiculous it is that amazon lists a non-existent email address with Arin for abuse. So yeah... really amazon? Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 29, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > > Dan, > > I do

Re: really amazon?

Dan, I don’t really have the time to parse the debug output you sent. If you want me, or most others, to pay attention to your post, please provide a more detailed explanation of what the deal is than “Really, amazon?” -mel > On Jul 29, 2019, at 4:03 PM, Dan Hollis wrote: > > Am

really amazon?

Amazon, you really should know better. Source ip: 54.240.4.4 https://search.arin.net/rdap/?query=54.240.4.4 Source Registry ARIN Kind Group Full Name Amazon SES Abuse Handle ASA152-ARIN Email email-ab...@amazon.com RCPT To: <<< 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected. 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown DATA