On Sat, 18 May 2019, Sérgio Rocha wrote:
We belong to this group: " Some people are really thankful when they receive
a notice and they understand they have something to fix. :-)"
And we would be more happy if we have sure that all the abuse contacts are
real, at least in RIPE region.
About the "at least in RIPE region", there is text on 2019-04 about that:
=====
c. Alignment with other RIRs:
A similar proposal has been accepted in APNIC (being implemented) and is
under discussion in the LACNIC, AFRINIC and ARIN regions.
=====
i.e. 1 region on track, 4 still to go (RIPE included here).
Cheers,
Carlos
Sérgio Rocha
-----Original Message-----
From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of
Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 23:52 PM
To: Taras Heichenko <ta...@hostmaster.ua>
Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox")
On Fri, 17 May 2019, Taras Heichenko wrote:
My team has nearly sent out 6000 abuse reports (only about intrusion
attempts and brute force attacks) since Jan 1st this year.
I've just checked, and only 2.5% bounced. 2018's bounces were around
4.5%.
Did you calculate percentage of deliberate reactions to your abuse
reports?
No, not yet.
What is main purpose to deliver letter without problem or to get
deliberate reaction to it?
We assume some of the nasty stuff we see comes from infected devices. If
legitimate owners care to desinfect, it's possible we will receive less
events... i.e. everyone should be sending out more notices. Some people are
really thankful when they receive a notice and they understand they have
something to fix. :-)
Carlos
