Yes, this was exactly my point :)
If the aa-wg wants this feature it should be proposed to the db-wg for
deciding how it should be implemented. (such as if it's another type
contact or just another abuse mailbox attribute)
-Cynthia
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022, 20:12 Ángel González Berdasco via anti-abu
I think this sounds like a good idea as someone who is also very much
interested in security.
However I think the implementation details should be discussed in the db-wg
as opposed to the aa-wg.
-Cynthia
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022, 13:46 Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 12:36:10P
Hi,
I just want to start out by saying that I have been quite busy lately
so I can't reply to all points in this thread but I mostly agree with
denis and what I have previously said in the db-wg.
I have replied to rfg below.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 12:36 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
>
> In mess
Hi Brian,
While not intensely familiar with the AA-WG specifically, this seems
like a good idea to me to help reduce load on the current co-chairs.
(I have no objections)
-Cynthia
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:04 AM Brian Nisbet wrote:
>
> Colleagues,
>
> As you're all aware Alireza stepped down a
> Let me start saying that it seems to me that UCEPROTECT doesn't follow
> their own stated policies. If it is so, it is a bad list. But I'd like
> to discuss a principle here which I think I'd like to know opinions of.
>
> On 05.03.21 11:38, Cynthia Revström via anti-a
Hi Christian,
As others have pointed out, even purely on a technical level, they are not
any kind of trustworthy source as paying to be delisted creates a very bad
incentive for them.
I agree that in general more lists should be added, but uceprotect should
be removed, because just listing it doe
> It seems to me that if your abuse@ email is being overloaded and you are
unable to keep your network spam free, then you shouldn't be taking on any
more customers until you figure things out.
As has been noted before in this thread, just because you are getting 200
abuse emails in a day doesn't
the party...
>
> On Sun 21/Feb/2021 03:44:07 +0100 Cynthia Revström via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> > If the hosting company provides a web form, they can have a field where
> they
> > explicitly ask for the offending IP address.
> > This report could then automatically also
dressed. If you are not the
> > intended recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or
> > other forms of dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have
> > received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately
> > and permanently
Hi Tobias,
I am very sorry, I messed up and I really shouldn't have come to the
conclusion of it for sure being marketing that quickly.
I will remember this for any potential future similar scenarios to not
repeat it.
-Cynthia
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 7:19 PM Tobias Knecht wrote:
> Cynthia,
>
se, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of
>> dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in
>> error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this
>> email with any files that may be attached.
>>
>>
>> O
e received this email in
> error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this
> email with any files that may be attached.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 6:12 PM Cynthia Revström via anti-abuse-wg <
> anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>&g
Hi,
(intro)
Tobias Knecht sent me an email (which this is a reply to) abusing his
position as co-chair in order to try to sell me services based on what I
said on a mailing list.
(mainly towards Tobias)
Replying to me based on a mailing list post in order to try to sell me
services is bad enough.
I give up, I am just wasting my time trying to argue, I want to make it
clear I still disagree with you but arguing is a waste of time.
-Cynthia
On Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 05:30 Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> In message u1e9un9ccc8uy-f7...@mail.gmail.com>,
> =?UTF-8?Q?Cynthia_Revstr=C3=B6m?= wrote:
Ronald,
Can you please stop attacking ideas (such as web forms) implying that they
only have malicious use cases.
> I hold them responsible because they obviously
> fail to have in place contractual clauses that would persuasively
> deter this behavior on the part of their customers.
In many cas
Hi Ronald,
You would find one example if you looked at my second email in the thread,
but I am re-sending for your convenience.
> Also to clarify these emails in particular were complete nonsense such as
"I am under ddos from you, please help" with no other details.
> They were also sent with inva
and block automatically specific IP addresses or ranges
> once the abuse has been reported and keeps repeating. Depending on the
> frequency of the repetitions, how many, etc., etc., I could increase
> automatically from a few hours to days or weeks the banning.
>
>
>
> Regards,
Hi aa-wg,
For some context, today and yesterday I have been receiving spam in the
form of fake abuse notices to my abuse contact email address.
Is there a generally accepted standard for when it's okay to block an
address or a prefix from emailing your abuse contact?
I consider being able to con
Hi Ostap,
First of all this mailing list is not intended to discuss individual cases
of abuse (especially ones not related to the RIPE NCC), but rather to
discuss and develop new methods for dealing with it in general.
(Brian, please correct me if I am wrong here)
Nonetheless, while I certainly d
19 matches
Mail list logo
