Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of "abuse-mailbox"", is now
available for discussion.
This proposal aims to have the RIPE NCC validate "abuse-c:" information more
often, and introduces a new validation process that requires manual input from
resource holders.
Marco,
Thanks for this, and thanks to Jordi for proposing it.
We will be discussing this next week at RIPE 78, but time is tight and, of
course, the important comments need to be on the mailing list, where the
decision is made.
As always the Co-Chairs hope for a respectful discussion on the pr
Colleagues,
Here is the latest agenda for the AA-WG Session, taking place in the Main Room
at 09:00 GMT on Thursday 23rd May. Remote participation will be available, all
of the details on ripe78.ripe.net
A. Administrative Matters
* Welcome
* Scribe, Jabber, Stenography
* Microphone
Marco Schmidt writes:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of "abuse-mailbox"",
> is now available for discussion.
>
> This proposal aims to have the RIPE NCC validate "abuse-c:"
> information more often, and introduces a new validation process that
> requires
Hi,
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 02:20:46PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> This proposal aims to have the RIPE NCC validate "abuse-c:" information more
> often, and introduces a new validation process that requires manual input
> from resource holders.
This will encourage me to build a robot that mon
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"",
Ola,
It's unclear to me what you are trying to accomplish with this policy:
* ensure ripe members have a working (as in receiving mail) abuse email
address;
* ensure ripe members have a working abuse email address and process incoming
mails;
* ensure ripe members have a working abuse email
Hi,
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 04:53:25PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> This will encourage me to build a robot that monitors our abuse mailbox
> and clicks on everything that comes in.
In case this was not obvious: I oppose this policy proposal.
It will have no positive effect whatsoever but it wi
Gert Doering wrote on 16/05/2019 21:47:
No positive effect, but lots of negative side-effects.
Abuse mailboxes are already checked. What matters for abuse management
is whether reports are acted on. This policy doesn't address that.
If the RIPE NCC is instructed to send 6-monthly reminders
Are they is the question
For example - ARIN just reclaimed a large number of IPs from an actor that
created a large number of shell companies. http://m.slashdot.org/story/355802
--srs
From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Nick Hilliard
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019
Peace,
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 3:21 PM Marco Schmidt wrote:
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of "abuse-mailbox"", is now
> available for discussion.
I support the proposal.
Assuming the implementation by NCC would be carried out in a way when
verification emails won't land in
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, clea
On Fri, 17-05-2019 1h 45min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
>
Hi Nick,
>
> [..]
>
> Anyone failing in repetitive ocassions to comply with policies is subjected
> to further NCC scrutiny, including account closure. This is a different
> policy already in place. If we don't lik
This "proportionality" test you speak of,
has as much relevance to the regulating of internet resources, as "freedom of
speech" does to regulating internet forum membership
(no relevance at all).
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New
Pol
> Abuse mailboxes are already checked. What matters for abuse
> management is whether reports are acted on. This policy doesn't
> address that.
>
> If the RIPE NCC is instructed to send 6-monthly reminders to all abuse
> contacts with the implicit threat that if they aren't acted on in the
> way
I beg to differ.
The ripe membership set's the policy;
Ripe enforces the policy;
If a ripe member has it's resources withdrawn due the policy and the
enforcement of the policy, the ripe member can go to court in The Netherlands
(see contact between member and ripe);
The Amsterdam court will ap
How was ARIN able to reclaim 750k IPs showing fraud including shell company
setup then? The USA is if anything even more litigious than Europe is.
You also go to court with "clean hands", so if the invalid abuse contact is
also accompanied by a proliferation of malware etc a judge may not react
"a case where the resources are withdrawn based only on the fact there was no
reply to the abuse-mailbox validation email"
You should high light the word 'only'.
The ARIN case has nothing to do with -only- not answering the validation mail.
It actually attacks a business model build on provi
But if a policy asking ripe ncc to investigate fraud and withdraw resources
were to be proposed we would again hear the "we are not the internet police"
trope :(
--srs
From: Alex de Joode
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 11:32 AM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Cc: anti-a
19 matches
Mail list logo
