On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 09:21:41AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 06:45:26AM +, Brian Nisbet via anti-abuse-wg
> wrote:
> > I have received two nominations/statements of williingness to volunteer;
> > one from Markus and one from Tobias.
> >
> > At this point I
On Tue, May 07, 2024 at 11:37:10AM +0200, Markus de Brün wrote:
Hi,
> the deadline for nominations has ended and we received one nomination. It
> is our current and long-standing co-chair Brian. In case you do not know
> Brian, there is a short biography at the end of this email.
>
> Brian is w
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 10:04:21AM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Brian, All,
> So, as a first stage, does any object to this happening "out of cycle"? I'm
> very happy to say that silence indicates consent here, but if you have any
> objections then please state them here or to aa-wg-cha...@ripe.n
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:30:06PM +, ripedenis--- via db-wg wrote:
Denis, All,
> We need to take some action on these old NWIs. Either we move forward with
> them or we cancel them. It is difficult to draw a consensus on 2 comments.
> Can you please give us a couple of minutes of your time
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 03:19:27PM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Brian, Alireza, Tobias,
> A few weeks ago we reached the end of the latest review phase for 2019-04.
> The Co-Chairs have worked closely with the NCC Policy Development Office
> since then to try to make a decision on this policy. Th
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:26:12AM -0700, Fi Shing wrote:
>
> > This is fully sufficient to notice technical brokenness.
>
> No it isn't for the reasons previously said by others:
>
> 1) if i put your email address as the abuse contact for my resource, the
> system would make it as "valid",
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:37:07AM +0100, Sérgio Rocha wrote:
> > i.e. 1 region on track, 4 still to go (RIPE included here).
>
> So it looks that this proposal it's not so avant-garde, since the other
> regions are having the same needs and one of them already include this
> policy
The fact that
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:02:23PM +0100, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> What i've heard from the Board so far on the list -- and the Board
> currently has seven members -- was a concern expressed by Piotr about
> timelines, which i think we have addressed in v2.0's text (which i also
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 01:16:59AM +0100, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:42 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
> anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> > I think is very obvious that the experts [..] will make sure that when a
> > warning is sufficient
>
> NO IT'S NOT
>
> The process is not cle
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:09:24AM +, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
Dear Carlos,
>> 8. "So Legacy holders (resources with a legacy status) are for obvious
>> reasons, excluded for penalties and out of reach. Also according to the
>> policy that specifies services to Legacy holder
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 09:18:02AM +, Carlos Friaças wrote:
Dear Carlos,
> What would be reasonable for you?
>
> 2 or 3 years before the date when the report is filed?
I was thinking more about weeks not years. Mostly due to the nature of
the incident(s) itself. However, I'm not strongly opp
Dear All,
What I'm lacking here is some sort of expiration date for the
possibility of filling the report. I do not like the idea that someone
could be chased down years after the alleged incident has happened (and
after the policy has been implemented, with regards to the point 5.0 of
the policy
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 09:59:47PM +0200, Gilles Massen wrote:
Dear AA-WG
As a kind of post-mortem comment:
> Specifically: forcing people to add an abuse-c as a matter of ticking a
> checkbox leads to not-working or ignored abuse email boxes. And I rather
> have no abuse-c than an ignored one -
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 07:18:38PM +0100, Gilles Massen wrote:
Dear Gilles
> Since the rationale mentions the "better quality of abuse contact data",
> I'd like to point out that it is still not possible to have a different
> abuse-c for different inetnums, if they belong to the same ORG. The
> i
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 04:53:57PM +, Erik Bais wrote:
Hi Erik
> >> > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-01
> >>
> >> I've read the proposal and I have a question on it.
> >>
> > >You propose that you want to extend the Abuse-C Contact management in
> > >the RIPE
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:06:50AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Marco
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in
> the Abuse-c Policy", is now available for discussion.
>
> The goal of this proposal is to extend RIPE Document ripe-563, "Abuse
> Contact Management
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:18:16AM +, Erik Bais wrote:
Hi Erik
> Thank you for the formal proposal.
>
> > You can find the full proposal at:
>
> > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-01
>
> I've read the proposal and I have a question on it.
>
> You propose that
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:29:48PM +, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:06:50AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
>> A new RIPE Policy proposal, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in
>> the Abuse-c Policy", is now available for discussion.
>>
>> The goal of this proposal is
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 03:34:26PM +0100, denis wrote:
Dear Denis,
> On 16/12/2015 11:32, Alex Band wrote:
>> Hi Michele,
>>
>>> On 15 Dec 2015, at 21:28, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> I support this plan
>>>
>>> It makes a lot of sense on two fronts: 1 - making sure
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:58:20PM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> I know that we're getting near to what for a lot of people will be a well
> deserved break at the end of the year, but it would be great if there could
> be some feedback for the NCC on this, even if it's just agreement! :)
I suppor
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 05:01:30PM +0100, de Brün, Markus wrote:
> Unfortunately, there are still lots of CIDRs for which the RIPE DB does not
> return a dedicated abuse contact. In some cases, you can find an appropriate
> contact in the "remarks" or other records - which is difficult to parse
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 08:56:42PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 07:40:58PM +, ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > STEP 4
> >
> > This is a one off cleanup of existing ROUTE objects. For all ROUTE
> > objects currently in the RIPE Database that relate to an out of
> >
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:06:09PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> I've been to Europe only one time, in 2010. I had to buy a cell phone
> there to communicate, and when I did I was entirely surprised to learn
> that one cannot do so without presenting some form of identification,
> passport,
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:29:18PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Should we worry also that the penguins in Antartica won't be able to
> obtain RIPE number resources because they also don't have working
> phones?
Although your argumentation most times violates the eristic rules I
would like j
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 03:41:39PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> If a formal proposal was put forward to the entire RIPE membership
> which proposed that all mailing addresses and phone numbers be
> completely removed from the WHOIS data base, would you personally
> vote "yea" or "nay" on tha
using email for abuse reports. Brian
> believed that this was sufficiently discussed on the mailing list but
> asked for comments from the audience.
>
> Piotr Strzyzewski, Database WG co-chair, approached the microphone and
> noted that he had posted an email to the Euro-IX mailing lis
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 05:18:06PM +0200, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote:
Dear WG Members
> > The idea of "abuse-c:" was to create one single place/way of
> > documenting abuse contact details. So far all that has been achieved
> > is to add a fourth way to document it. All the old ways
> > ("abuse-mailbo
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 03:18:17PM +, Gist, Jonathan wrote:
Hi
> Is this a view that is help by others?
No, not by me.
Piotr
--
gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski
E-mail: piotr.strzyzew...@polsl.pl
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 07:32:25PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> 31.2.128.0/17
> 46.51.0.0/17
> 95.64.0.0/17
> 164.138.128.0/18
> 188.229.0.0/17
>
> Prior to AS197207's decision to begin announcing the above routes (which
> they did, starting on Oct. 25th), it appears that the proprietors of
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 11:06:34AM +0100, furio ercolessi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 06:38:36AM +, Sascha Luck wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 04:37:13PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> > [...]
> > >So there is no trace... no chain of documentation on how an AS got to
> > >be an AS
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 11:16:44AM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> >> A few questions, if you don't mind...
> >>
> >> Given some arbitrary record which is stored within the RIPE WHOIS
> >> data base, such as an organization (ORG-*) record or a record for
> >> a number resource, such as an AS, h
31 matches
Mail list logo
