Hi Richard
Thanks for the response. Comments below...
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 at 14:27, Richard Clayton wrote:
>
> In message il.com>, denis walker writes
>
> >I am hoping there are some lawyers or legal experts in this WG.
>
> they are even less likely to advise you
th an individual or small business that falls short of
criminal activity. Would that be a reasonable conclusion?
cheers
denis
DISCLAIMER
Everything I said above is my personal, professional opinion. It is
what I believe to be honest and true t
rvices to the abusers.
So the prospect of this new WG achieving anything beyond giving advice
(which can be ignored) is seriously limited from the start.
cheers
denis
DISCLAIMER
Everything I said above is my personal, professional opinion.
://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2022-July/007537.html
Your opinions would be appreciated.
cheers
denis
proposal author
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
I got the link wrong in the previous email
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2022-June/007460.html
Cheers
denis
On Thu, 16 Jun 2022, 17:13 denis walker, wrote:
> Colleagues
>
> After publishing a second version of the policy proposal I have started a
> new conversation
://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2022-June/007460.html
<https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2022-June/007458.html>
As it is a Database policy it would be good if we can keep the discussion
in one place on the DB WG mailing list.
cheers
denis
policy proposer
--
To unsubscribe fro
Hi Angel
On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 at 03:09, Ángel González Berdasco
wrote:
>
> denis wrote:
> In a previous mail you mentioned:
> > When these people apply to be a member I am sure the RIPE NCC requires
> > proof of identity and proof of address.
>
> but -being slightly mo
Hi Guys
You could add an optional attribute "security-mailbox:" alongside the
"abuse-mailbox:". If present it could be returned in a query with the
abuse-mailbox address by default, or with a specific query. Or
reference it separately with a "sec-c:" attribute.
c
> In case I have been anything less than clear, please allow me to say this
> very plainly
Devil forbid that you have been anything less than clear.
-- I do not agree with the way you folks in Europe nowadays
> value privacy -above- transparency. It is causing obvious disasters and
>
gh consensus that led several wg
chairs and other ripe “names” to just happen to be in the room in time
for a “any other business” session whose agenda was to drop Richard
Cox from his co chair role.
I wasn't there and it has nothing to do with this proposal.
cheers
denis
prop
On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 at 01:45, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> In message
>
> denis walker wrote:
>
> >The bottom line is that there are honest, law abiding people who are,
> >or would like to be, resource holders but are exposed to considerable
> >personal danger
t set of
rants.
You have confused the issues so much that now I will have to answer
your circular, repetitive arguments.
On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 at 00:36, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> In message
>
> denis walker wrote:
>
> >We are talking about restricting access to one piece
resources
having the same address. Using the IDs of random people and drunks
from a bar will give them all different addresses. Knowing these
addresses doesn't help you in any way.
Also an LLC is a registered business. Their addresses will remain
public in the database.
cheers
denis
p
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 19:27, Richard Clayton wrote:
>
> In message jgzda...@mail.gmail.com>, denis walker writes
>
> >On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 17:57, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> Always a useful thing to do if you want to block all res
the same location? If so
there are technical ways to offer that functionality within the
database without exposing the full address of natural person members.
cheers
denis
proposal author
>
> --srs
> ____
> Denis walker
>
> you attempt some kind of he
Hi Richard
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 16:15, Richard Clayton wrote:
>
> In message il.com>, denis walker writes
>
> >They were very clear that the address of resource holders is also very
> >important to LEAs in their investigations. So I am going to make a
> >
en I wrote the
policy proposal but I didn't want to be the one to say it. I was
hoping to hear it from other members of the community. Now we have it
on the table.
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 10:29, Hans-Martin Mosner via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
>
> Am 31.05.22 um 15:12 schrieb denis walker:
>
Hi Michele
The proposal is here
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01
cheers
denis
proposal author
On Tue, 31 May 2022 at 18:07, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
wrote:
>
> Denis
>
>
>
> Where’s the actual proposal?
>
>
>
> I’d love to g
to be removed, or hidden from public view. If you have an
opinion about this the conversation is here
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2022-May/007432.html
cheers
denis
2022-01 proposal author
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
Why is this not possible? Your list below seems to be a full list of their
IPv4. I got the same list from a simple query. A full list of IPv6 is also
easy to derive.
cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG
>
> Blocks assigned to ORG-SI6-RIPE (fully aggregated):
>
> 31.3.8.0/21
> 3
n make the necessary technical changes. As long as
we don't break that basic principle of having the one process for
documenting and finding abuse contacts, each of which is singularly
defined, anything else can be changed.
cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 11:09, Alessandr
7;s
abuse-c as well. Or we can add a new query flag to return both abuse-c
details when available. Or we can modify the abuse-c attribute in some
way so the resource holder can choose what a query returns. Any
behaviour is possible as long as you define what behaviour you want
and the community fin
ut I think you
> could have an abuse contact object, that you could modify,
This bit is possible. The ROLE object containing the "abuse-mailbox:"
can be maintained by the end user so they can set their own email
address and change it whenever they wish.
> with the
> main resourc
Hi Alessandro
On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 13:03, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> Hi Denis,
>
> I followed the discussion, and got a rough idea of how it works. At the time,
> I succeeded convincing my ISP (Eutelia) to assign an abuse-mailbox to me.
> Afterwards the policy changed, bu
return the closest abuse
email address to any given IP address. So for any address in the end
user's range it will return their abuse email.
cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 13:37, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> we all know abuse-c data is to be
Colleagues
In advance of my presentations tomorrow, if you have a spare 15
minutes please watch the pre-recorded presentation:
https://ripe83.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/DB_WG-Denis_Walker-Purposes83.mp4
cheers
denis
co-chair DSB-WG
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a
it is helpful if people have some idea of your background and
experience. I don't see that as a marketing statement.
cheers
denis
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 at 18:23, Cynthia Revström via anti-abuse-wg <
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
> It is possible but I highly doubt it.
>
> >
HI Elad
As co-chair of the DB-WG I would like to point out that what you are
talking about.has nothing to do with the RIPE Database. Please don't
use this mailing list for these discussions.
cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 20:30, Elad Cohen via db-wg wrote:
>
>
Regular abuse-c
Validation)
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 23:54:44 + (UTC)
denis walker wrote:
> I have read the proposal and all the comments. Many things have
> already been said. I will try to say something new, mostly on the
> technical issues. My first comment is as the co author of the
ink that style of writing in this type of
proposal is helpful...but that is just my opinion...
Overall I neither support nor oppose the policy. I just wanted to highlight
some issues.
cheers
denis
From: Marco Schmidt
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Sent: Thursday, 7 September 2017, 13:59
Subj
HI Vittorio
On 02/08/2017 12:53, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Il 2 agosto 2017 alle 12.23 denis ha scritto:
It is not a question of 'getting heard', it is knowing you have a
voice and where to use it. Literally anyone can join a discussion on
a Working Group mailing list, make com
Hi Vittorio
On 02/08/2017 12:03, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Il 1 agosto 2017 alle 23.47 denis ha scritto:
"Part of my job is to help LEAs understand this process and how
their suggestions on changing policy would impact the broader RIPE
community, such as making changes to the
with
understanding and following process. That is why they write
documentation, run training courses and have Customer Support. Whether
it is written or not, it has been said many times that the PDO will
assist anyone who wishes to write a policy proposal.
cheers
denis
rgds,
Sascha Luck
Hi Andre
I have just read this whole thread (one day I will get a life). I would like to
make an observation and a suggestion.
First the observation. You seem to be making the same point many, many times.
You believe that Twitter is a spammer and no one will do anything about it. I
think that su
Colleagues
I have just sent a proposal to the DB-WG for fixing the issues with "abuse-c:".
If you are not subscribed to the DB-WG you can find the
proposal:https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2017-April/005520.html
cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG
Hi Andre
I thought the IRT object (Incident Response Team) existed for large scale DDOS
attack situations? One of the reasons for creating the "abuse-c:" attribute was
because the IRT object was being hijacked for the 'less serious' complaints.
cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG
Hi Daniel
Thanks for that suggestion. It has given me some ideas and I already have half
a proposal in mind based on thiswhich I will submit when I fill in the
other half...
cheersdenisco-chair DB-WG
From: Daniel Stolpe
To: denis walker
Cc: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net&qu
e
information consumers without an in depth knowledge of the database or industry
need to easily understand 'who' claims to be behind an email address then we
may need a more complex solution.
I hope this makes sense and look forward to comments and questions.
cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG
iling lists. Sometimes I post and many list members reject my mails
because of DMARC policies. As I don't have a corporate email address I
have limited options.
cheers
denis
On 2017-02-20 15:54, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Datev.de isn’t even an ISP it looks like a software firm to
gesperrt vom DATEV WebRadar,
http://webradar.datev.de/lookup?domain=xs4all.nl, servertime=Feb 20
02:16:47, server=idvmailin04.datev.com, client=194.109.24.26
cheers
denis
On 20/02/2017 14:58, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 20-Feb-2017, at 2:22 AM, denis wrote:
It seems like XS4ALL is not a
HI
It seems like XS4ALL is not able to do anything about being blacklisted.
Obviously the message about handling abuse is not getting through
cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG
Original Message
Subject: RE: Feedback Werkingproduct (Email-Id: 6483239)
Date: 2017-02-20 09:51
Hi Gert
I know we have a fundamental difference of opinion here but I will try
to be constructive.
On 10/03/2016 19:00, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 06:50:52PM +0100, denis wrote:
Maybe we should talk about making admin-c and tech-c work like abuse-c.
That would be a
this is not the final solution, as a temporary fix it could be up and
running so easily and improve the confidence in the IRR.
cheers
denis
admin-c and tech-c today.
Maybe we should talk about making admin-c and tech-c work like abuse-c.
That would be a step in the right direction.
cheers
denis
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
regards,
elvis
for anyone to analyse. I did this
once and the number of individuals (excluding chairs and NCC staff who
you expect to be on the lists) who commented on the technical lists over
a year was very small indeed. I don't expect much to change in the near
future...
cheers
denis
Best regards,
- Håvard
process. This is a cartel of old timers
who make all the decisions so they get their own way. This needs to be
fixed.
cheers
denis
Strong +1.
Ditto.
- Håvard
d and is fully
deployed for RIPE NCC resources. You should not need to do any manual
lookups.
cheers
denis
—srs
Quoting Gert -
The relevant question for the PDP is "does 2016-01 help achieve the
goal of better combatting Internet abuse"?
[..]
I don't know why we are makin
done, although I think there are other ways to improve the
implementation of abuse-c. I specified some options on RIPE Labs 2 years ago
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/suggestions-for-improving-abuse-handling
- permit abuse-c: to point to a normal person: object, not only role:
my main
On 07/03/2016 23:37, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
I'm just going to go "+1" on that as I couldn't have said it any
better.
rgds,
Sascha Luck
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 10:31:51PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:02:26PM +0100, denis wrote:
> T
HI Niall
On 07/03/2016 17:48, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:08 PM, denis wrote:
The "abuse-c:" IS standardised. It is well defined and documented as
THE method of defining abuse contact details in th
my person: object but
having to create a role: for myself is a bit silly.
It is called standardisation. Although I am sure you will not believe me
it does actually simplify the data model if you do things in a standard
way :)
cheers
denis
gert
Hi Suresh
On 07/03/2016 11:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:08 PM, denis wrote:
The "abuse-c:" IS standardised. It is well defined and documented
as THE method of defining abuse contact details in the RIPE
Database according to the policy. Historically, as I me
Hi Niall
On 07/03/2016 11:52, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:29, denis wrote:
Don't make emotive, vague comments like thisexplain with facts.
and a little further on:
When you work that one out they can apply the same principle to
"abuse-c:". Problem so
se rather than pull out blocks of raw data for human readable,
manual interpretation.
cheers
denis
remarks:+---+ remarks:
| In case of complaints use the contact | remarks:|
information in the role object below. | remarks:
+---+
ssues*. How do you
propose the NCC does that? When you work that one out they can apply the
same principle to "abuse-c:". Problem solved...
cheers
denis
Where does it say that in the
contract and how would it be enforced towards ERX holders who
don't *have* a contract?
In eit
nd then start working out how to move in that
direction. In other words, stop evading the real issue and tackle it.
cheers
denis
nagement requires you
to provide abuse contact details!!!
cheers
denis
On 03/03/2016 23:30, Peter Koch wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 11:46:45AM +0100, denis wrote:
In these days of political interest in how the internet is 'managed' the
RIRs need to do more than 'just maintain a
with
the irr data in a single whois hell. newer folk seem to think they are
the same.
...whilst the older folk are creating a new hell by clinging to the past
and burying their heads in the sand...
cheers
denis
randy
the political and responsible management concerns of a 21st
century, global resource.
The more I hear long term, experienced internet people like yourself and
Randy constantly criticising the role of the RIRs and wishing for the
old days, the more I fear for the future of the internet.
cheers
den
ther govt regulation than regulation by a bunch of amateur
policy weenies. at least i get to vote on the former and have courts.
I was not aware that the UN was elected :)
cheers
denis
but i have nothing new to say and a plane to catch. enjoy.
randy
Hi Gert
I published some ideas almost 2 years ago on how we could improve abuse-c
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/suggestions-for-improving-abuse-handling
I am not saying these are a perfect solution either, but no one was
interested in discussing ways forward...
...dare I also say this
buse is considered to be a
serious problem. What you are saying is that you don't give a dam about
abuse and are not interested in being part of the management of abuse.
The more people who hold and publish this view, the more likely
politicians are to get involved.
cheers
denis
randy
rs to contact each other. So even you are now
confused over what is operationally useful and what is for registry
accuracy.
cheers
denis
randy
over it.
As long as you know it is the email address intended to receive abuse
complaints, if there is no response that in itself is a statement from
the network manager.
cheers
denis
nt to mandate behavior beyond that necessary for the ncc to
maintain accurate records of resource 'ownership'. beyond that is me
telling someone else how to run their network.
No it is telling someone to manage their networks in a responsible manner.
cheers
denis
i suspect they will
is needed and
enforcement is the only way forward.
cheers
denis
On 28/02/2016 19:38, Ruediger Volk wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I object to passing the policy as proposed.
There is no serious need for the policy,
and at this time and under curent circumstance it would
actually be harmful.
I believe
eed to contact these
Again NO!!! This is the same argument I have had about the new
Webupdates. Because "abuse-c:" works in an inherited way within the
hierarchy it is fundamentally wrong to add redundant links where they
are not needed.
cheers
denis
holders of 67,000 objects, of whi
clean-up has not yet
been done.)
On 29/01/2016 17:21, Gilles Massen wrote:
Hi Denis,
IIRC, when I looked into this your proposed workaround was not possible
for a maintainer/legacy reason, but since we brought the LEGACY
assignments properly under the RIPE roof, it should work know.
BUT, I ha
.
cheers
denis
When "abuse-c:" was first proposed, Tobias (co-chair of Anti Abuse WG)
and I spent a lot of time discussing how to achieve the intended goal.
We came up with the current implementation, which after community
discussion was approved. But you never think of everything in
original goal of abuse-c.
cheers
denis
On 12/01/2016 15:23, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Afternoon(-ish),
As I'm pretty sure Monday is now everywhere in the world, I think that
given the lack of further responses or discussion or, importantly,
disagreements with the general feeling of consensus, I thi
Hi Tim
On 17/12/2015 12:01, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote:
Hi all,
To clarify, we do not create duplicates or overrides.
On 16 Dec 2015, at 16:54, denis wrote:
Hi Tim
On 16/12/2015 15:58, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote:
Hi,
To expedite the creation of abuse contacts we've just
deployed an enhanc
created.
You should not be creating objects in the database if you don't know
what their immediate use is for. If you do not currently handle any
abuse complaints then you should not include an "abuse-c:" attribute in
a newly created ORGANISATION object. This is confusing and red
nd only display this
warning if this object should have an "abuse-c:" reference.
cheers
denis
You just hit the bell icon, enter your abuse email address and we
will create a role object for you. The resulting nic-handle is
automatically filled in the abuse-c attribute of the or
in the ORGANISATION object and inherit it in the resources. It was an
example of how an organisation centric data model and the use of
inheritance could dramatically reduce the amount of repetitive data in
the database and make the whole system simpler and easier to manage.
cheers
denis
Hi Job, Tim
On 12/11/2015 16:57, Job Snijders wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:52:36PM +0100, denis wrote:
From what I understood from Gert and Randy's comments it is a user's
choice where to put a ROUTE object and there seem to be some reasons
why they sometimes choose to put it i
anything from scratch. There is a system to check for unreferenced
PERSON objects that runs every day. If an object has not been referenced
for 90 days it is deleted.
cheers
denis
It will obviously require work. Very rough initial estimates
indicate it can take up to a few months. We c
HI Tim
Thanks for the review. I have added a few comments below.
cheers
denis
On 11/11/2015 10:41, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote:
Dear working groups,
At RIPE 70 the RIPE Database Working group asked the RIPE NCC to work
together with Afrinic on an implementation proposal to migrate
Afrinic route(6
Hi Ronald
On 06/11/2015 22:44, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <563c8773.7000...@yahoo.co.uk>,
denis wrote:
It may seem like I am quibbling over a minor semantic point here, and
perhaps I am, but I think that it is somewhat inaccurate to say that
there's no relationship at
pproval of the related resource
holders. And I believe it could be implemented in a relatively short
space of time giving immediate benefits.
cheers
denis
STEP 1
Any ROUTE object submitted for creation in the RIPE Database involving
an out of region resource (address space and/or ASN) where t
Hi Brian
On 06/11/2015 11:29, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Denis,
On 05/11/2015 19:40, ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
HI all
I am going to have one last go at solving this problem. I challenge
anyone/everyone to tell me why this is such a stupid idea, technically
impossible to do, won't solve any o
HI Ronald
On 06/11/2015 05:48, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <563bf1e0.3090...@yahoo.co.uk>,
denis wrote:
On this point I believe you are wrong. "allow end users to create
accounts on their corporate web sites". This is not how the RIPE
Database works. The accounta
'foreign' AUT-NUM objects could be immediately
deleted. (Or after allowing time for these ASN holders to make sure
their routing policy is actually up to date in the authoritative AUT-NUM
object.)
cheers
denis
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
his convoluted way. The data model allows it.
cheers
denis
Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to share that evidence just
yet.
Ahaha.
Laugh now... while you can.
Regards,
rfg
Hi Ronald
On 06/11/2015 00:58, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <563bdb1c.4020...@yahoo.co.uk>,
denis wrote:
On 05/11/2015 21:33, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <637758753.2826426.1446595528880.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com>,
ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
With reg
HI Ronald
On 05/11/2015 23:44, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <563a6462.7080...@yahoo.co.uk>,
denis wrote:
You{r} talk about privacy and this whole thread is about making lots of
personal data public and how many over engineered processes can be put
in place to the detriment
your choice of objects all the contact data in those objects
will be perfectly valid. They just have no relationship with you.
cheers
denis
Regards,
rfg
like the idea then maybe the DB WG will pick it up :)
cheers
denis
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
by AS204224.
This really is so easy to fix but no one is interested in a quick fix :(
cheers
denis
At the time of writing there are no such objects present, whereas at
03:45 this morning there were 5 such objects. That's a pattern that has
continued for some time ...
I noted the "n
ot the NCC that puts the brake on ideas. They provide technical
advice during discussions and do an impact analysis if a consensus is
reached. But that is where the problem often occurs. Trying to get a
consensus when there are many different views and strong opinions.
cheers
denis
The
Hi Sascha
On 04/11/2015 19:42, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:17:10PM +0100, denis wrote:
My main point was the chain of trust for resource holders and
resource managers. Also being contactable does not mean personal
contact data must be displayed to the public. There
ntactable does not mean personal contact data
must be displayed to the public. There are many ways to be contactable.
But few people are even willing to discuss possibilities when it comes
to changing the data model.
cheers
denis
community and talks with the WG chairs. In the end, wh
Hi Gilles
I have just submit a proposal to the DB WG on the cleanup process. There
was some discussion a long time ago on converting IRT object into ROLE
objects, but that discussion was never brought to any conclusion. I
don't propose to include that in this cleanup.
cheers
Denis W
reaffirm the cleanup process.
cheers
Denis Walker
Independent Netizen
On 06/05/2015 17:18, Tim Bruijnzeels
wrote:
Dear colleagues,
On 05 May 2015, at 15:59,
denis walker <ripede.
Hi All
When the original implementation plan was put forward for "abuse-c:", the time
line (if I remember correctly) was:-allowing 6 months to deploy to all members
allocations-then 12 months to deploy to all independent resources-then do a
cleanup
The first two steps are done, but the last one
94 matches
Mail list logo
