Hi,
I obviously don't speak for the incident handling community, but i think
this (making it optional) would be a serious step back. The current
situation is already very bad when in some cases we know from the start
that we are sending (automated) messages/notices to blackholes.
To an
In message ,
Hans-Martin Mosner wrote:
>While this would probably paint a pretty solid picture of which network o=
>perators can be trusted and which can't,
>there's another point besides your valid concern about abusers gaming the=
> system: Whoever publishes the results of such
>user ratings
Am 14.01.20 um 13:10 schrieb Ronald F. Guilmette:
> [...]
> So, my solution is just don't. Let the whole planet vote on whether
> they think this provider or that provider are ***heads, and let the
> chips fall where they may.
>
> I'm not saying that even this idea would neessarily be
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:48 AM Gert Doering wrote:
[...]
> A much simpler approach would be to make abuse-c: an optional attribute
> (basically, unrolling the "mandatory" part of the policy proposal that
> introduced it in the first place)
This seems like a simple approach for letting network
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, we will never reach consensus
Right, and that was a part of my point about eBay-like feedback ratings
for resource holders, i.e. "Let's
In message <671286eb-7fad-4d70-addd-efa0a680b...@consulintel.es>,
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
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Gert Doering wrote on 14/01/2020 10:19:
And if it's not going to have the desired effect, do not waste time on it.
More to the point, the RIPE number registry should not be used as a stick for
threatening to beat people up if they don't comply
Gert Doering wrote on 14/01/2020 10:19:
And if it's not going to have the desired effect, do not waste time on it.
More to the point, the RIPE number registry should not be used as a
stick for threatening to beat people up if they don't comply with our
current favourite ideas about how to
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 03:10:53AM -0700, Fi Shing wrote:
> weak imbeciles such as those on this list.
Wow. That's a new one on my list of things I've been called.
So thankful.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:50:58AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> Looks fine to me.
>
> If we really think that the operators should be free from taking abuse
> reports, then let's make it optional.
>
> As said, I personally think that an operator responsibility is
Well the operators are already free to decide if and when they respond to abuse
reports.
But this farcical system should not be legitimised by weak imbeciles such as
those on this list.
- Original Message - Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in
new version of 2019-04
Looks fine to me.
If we really think that the operators should be free from taking abuse reports,
then let's make it optional.
As said, I personally think that an operator responsibility is to deal with
abuse cases, but happy to follow what we all decide.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:38:28AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:36:10AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
> anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> > So it is not just easier to ask the abuse-c mailboxes that don't want to
> > process to setup an autoresponder with an specific
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:36:10AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> So it is not just easier to ask the abuse-c mailboxes that don't want to
> process to setup an autoresponder with an specific (standard) text about
> that, for example:
>
> "This is an automated
I think if we try to agree on those ratings, we will never reach consensus ...
So it is not just easier to ask the abuse-c mailboxes that don't want to
process to setup an autoresponder with an specific (standard) text about that,
for example:
"This is an automated convirmation that you
Hi Ronald,
El 14/1/20 0:17, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette"
escribió:
In message <55d65bf8-a430-4bdc-ae58-63ff3dca4...@consulintel.es>,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>Section 2.0 bullet point #2. What's wrong with web forms?
>
>If I need to use
Hi Leo
El 14/1/20 0:11, "Leo Vegoda" escribió:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:50 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
[...]
> I will love to have in the policy that they must be investigated and
acted upon, but what I heard from the inputs in previous
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 03:11:23PM -0800, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:50 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I will love to have in the policy that they must be investigated and acted
> > upon, but what I heard from the inputs in previous
18 matches
Mail list logo
