Hello Denis,
> Sorry Elvis but you are neither a software engineer nor a regular user
> inputting data into the RIPE Database. So your unsubstantiated statement of
> 'poor' does not carry much weight.
Excuse me, but you do not get to decide that a fellow working group member's
contribution doe
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 step
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 step in the right direction.
So you want to add millions of unmaintained organization: objects to the
millions of unmaintained admin-c:/tech-c: r
HI Elvis
On 10/03/2016 11:39, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
Hi Gert,
I agree with you that the implementation of abuse-c was 'poor'.
Sorry Elvis but you are neither a software engineer nor a regular user
inputting data into the RIPE Database. So your unsubstantiated statement
of 'poor' does not
I would like abuse-c: much more if it were changed in two ways:
- permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects
- permit abuse-c: to point to a normal person: object, not only role:
>>>
>>> This boils down to what I thought would have been the better
>>> implementation all along.
>
Hi Havard
On 09/03/2016 22:02, Havard Eidnes wrote:
I would like abuse-c: much more if it were changed in two ways:
- permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects
- permit abuse-c: to point to a normal person: object, not only role:
This boils down to what I thought would have been the better
On 09/03/2016 12:05, Havard Eidnes wrote:
I would like abuse-c: much more if it were changed in two ways:
- permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects
- permit abuse-c: to point to a normal person: object, not only role:
This boils down to what I thought would have been the better
implementa
> I would like abuse-c: much more if it were changed in two ways:
> - permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects
> - permit abuse-c: to point to a normal person: object, not only role:
wfm
>> I would like abuse-c: much more if it were changed in two ways:
>>
>> - permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects
>> - permit abuse-c: to point to a normal person: object, not only role:
>
> This boils down to what I thought would have been the better
> implementation all along.
>
> Strong +1.
D
> On 08-Mar-2016, at 2:10 PM, Gilles Massen wrote:
>
>> Maybe some extended outreach activity could be started to actually ensure
>> that some human is alive at ERX holders that the NCC had no contact
>> anymore since years - but friendly, not pushy. They have been here
>> first, we have no au
On 07/03/16 13:33, Gert Doering wrote:
> I would like abuse-c: much more if it were changed in two ways:
>
> - permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects
> - permit abuse-c: to point to a normal person: object, not only role:
+many.
> my main issue is the forced indirection through organisation
Hi Suresh
On 07/03/2016 13:19, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 07-Mar-2016, at 5:44 PM, Niall O'Reilly
wrote:
I think Peter Koch, Gert Doering, and Gilles Massen have answered
this question adequately already.
Gert followed a rather socratic method - answering a question with
another :)
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:
> The requirement for role: objects is also annoying
> if all there is is just a
> It has been implemented for the whole of the address space allocated
> or assigned by the RIPE NCC. We spent 6 months 'encouraging' members
> to deploy it, then another year 'encouraging' PI holders to deploy
> it. ...
and 42% of those addresses black-hole or bounce. and we keep tilting
at this
Hi Gert
On 07/03/2016 13:33, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 12:14:36PM +, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
I???m glad to see various people step up and reject abuse-c but is
there a workable suggestion?
I think Peter Koch, Gert Doering, and Gilles Massen have answered
this ques
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:29:11AM +0100, denis wrote:
In its current implementation, abuse-c: is not only useless, it's
potentially harmful.
Don't make emotive, vague comments like thisexplain with
facts.
As it is implemented now, for existing resources, if a LIR
does not set the abuse-
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> I would like abuse-c: much more if it were changed in two ways:
>
> - permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects
> - permit abuse-c: to point to a normal person: object, not only role:
This boils down to what I thought would have been the bett
Hi Denis,
> What you are really saying here is that you are willing to accept that
> many network managers don't want to handle abuse complaints. So make it
> optional and let them leave it blank.
As a community we have to accept that, whether we like it or not. The
only way to force someone (unl
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:
> The requirement for role: objec
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:02:26PM +0100, denis wrote:
> > The requirement for role: objects is also annoying
> > if all there is is just a single person - so admin-c:, tech-c: point to
> > "the person that is responsible for everything", while abuse-c: needs a
> > new object.
>
> Please lear
Hi Job
Interesting but I don't think this is for Joe Public who receives spam or
phishing emails and wants to complain about them. I can't see your average non
techie internet user downloading software to make a complaint.
cheersdenis
From: Job Snijders
To: denis
Cc: Randy Bush ; Nick
Hi Gert
On 07/03/2016 13:42, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 06:06:04PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
On 07-Mar-2016, at 6:03 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
- permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects - permit abuse-c: to
point to a normal person: object, not only role:
[???]
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 solved...
Not at all.
On 7 Mar 2016, at 16:57, Randy Bush wrote:
>> At least for for 2028 (12 years further on), we can hope that
>> pervasive adoption of IPv6 will have made Legacy IPv4 resources
>> irrelevant.
>
> and how is rosenantes?
8-)
> At least for for 2028 (12 years further on), we can hope that
> pervasive adoption of IPv6 will have made Legacy IPv4 resources
> irrelevant.
and how is rosenantes?
> the whole point of book keeping is to have accurate data and records
>
> so, pick your poison. All POV leads to exactly the same thing: the ncc
> needs accurate abuse-c as much as any of the other data.
and it needs an accurate record of my blood type.
On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 05:56:54 -0800
Randy Bush wrote:
> > the whole point of book keeping is to have accurate data and records
> >
> > so, pick your poison. All POV leads to exactly the same thing: the
> > ncc needs accurate abuse-c as much as any of the other data.
>
> and it needs an accurate
Hi There:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:18 AM, denis wrote:
>
>
> On 05/03/2016 12:36, h...@anytimechinese.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The issue that abuse-C resolves is the provision of a consistent
>>> and thus parseable contact point for abuse issues.
>>>
>>> Of course if there was a way to get abuse
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 06:06:04PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 07-Mar-2016, at 6:03 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> >
> > - permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects
> > - permit abuse-c: to point to a normal person: object, not only role:
>
> [???]
>
> I???m actually +1 with these.
On 07-Mar-2016, at 6:03 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> - permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects
> - permit abuse-c: to point to a normal person: object, not only role:
[…]
I’m actually +1 with these. And in fact even with the current spec there isn’t
anything that says a person object can’t be a
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 12:14:36PM +, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> > I???m glad to see various people step up and reject abuse-c but is
> > there a workable suggestion?
>
>I think Peter Koch, Gert Doering, and Gilles Massen have answered
> this question adequately already.
Admittedly, I
> On 07-Mar-2016, at 5:44 PM, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>
> I think Peter Koch, Gert Doering, and Gilles Massen have answered this
> question adequately already.
Gert followed a rather socratic method - answering a question with another :)
The current method is absolutely not useful in that the
On 7 Mar 2016, at 11:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:22 PM, Niall O'Reilly
wrote:
When you work that one out they can apply the same principle to
"abuse-c:". Problem solved...
Pot, kettle, etc.
/Niall
It still leaves this question Denis posed unanswered
How do yo
On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:22 PM, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>
>> When you work that one out they can apply the same principle to "abuse-c:".
>> Problem solved...
>
> Pot, kettle, etc.
> /Niall
It still leaves this question Denis posed unanswered
>> How do you propose the NCC does that?
Other than abu
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 solved...
Pot, kettle, etc.
/Niall
Hi Sascha
On 05/03/2016 12:50, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 09:00:27AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
The relevant question for the PDP is "does 2016-01 help achieve
the goal of better combatting Internet abuse"?
In its current implementation, abuse-c: is not only useless, it'
On 05/03/2016 12:36, h...@anytimechinese.com wrote:
The issue that abuse-C resolves is the provision of a consistent
and thus parseable contact point for abuse issues.
Of course if there was a way to get abuse contacts to be more
responsive then everyone would be happier (or unhappier .. ).
On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 11:50:06 +
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 09:00:27AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> >The relevant question for the PDP is "does 2016-01 help achieve
> >the goal of better combatting Internet abuse"?
> In its current implementation, abuse-c: is not only use
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 09:00:27AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
The relevant question for the PDP is "does 2016-01 help achieve
the goal of better combatting Internet abuse"?
In its current implementation, abuse-c: is not only useless, it's
potentially harmful.
-Either abuse-c: is nothing but a
* Randy Bush:
>> there has to be accurate records for abuse-c
>
> really? and how does abuse-c affect the effective operation of the ncc
> resource registry.
They can point law enforcement to a more reliable self-service tool, I
assume.
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 09:00:27 +0100
Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 01:21:04AM +0100, denis wrote:
> > OK lets cut to the bottom line. Does anyone NOT agree with these
> > points:
> > -Internet abuse (in it's various forms) is considered both a
> > nuisance and a danger by the pu
> No. It needs to contain accurate records of who has been delegated
> responsibility for that (admin-c / org).
>
> abuse-c is a way to ease finding the *right* contacts instead of always
> having to write paper mail to the company CEO - and that makes sense,
> but it's a convenience to operators
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 01:21:04AM +0100, denis wrote:
> OK lets cut to the bottom line. Does anyone NOT agree with these points:
>
> -Internet abuse (in it's various forms) is considered both a nuisance
> and a danger by the public
> -Politicians will jump onto any band wagon that has popul
Hi Peter
OK lets cut to the bottom line. Does anyone NOT agree with these points:
-Internet abuse (in it's various forms) is considered both a nuisance
and a danger by the public
-Politicians will jump onto any band wagon that has popular public
support and enhances their careers
-Responsible
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 an accurate registry'. The
indeed. The community should be careful to maintain and improve the
credibility and legitimacy
+1
-jg
On 03/03/2016, 10:03 p.m., "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of denis"
wrote:
>Hi Gert
>
>I am sorry but I TOTALLY disagree with you here. You have a very old
>fashioned view of both the registry and the 'management' of the internet
>by some bottom up, open, transparent, industry/community
On 03/03/2016 23:13, Randy Bush wrote:
No. It needs to contain accurate records of who has been delegated
responsibility for that (admin-c / org).
abuse-c is a way to ease finding the *right* contacts instead of always
having to write paper mail to the company CEO - and that makes sense,
but
Hi Gert
I am sorry but I TOTALLY disagree with you here. You have a very old
fashioned view of both the registry and the 'management' of the internet
by some bottom up, open, transparent, industry/community driven process.
I make no apologies here for doing another Donald Trump. I am going to
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:56:05PM +0200, an...@ox.co.za wrote:
> it is actually very simple:
>
> any rigorously correct resource allocation registry data must
> include accurate abuse records.
No. It needs to contain accurate records of who has been delegated
responsibility for that (admi
Randy Bush wrote:
> and i would rather govt regulation than regulation by a bunch of amateur
> policy weenies. at least i get to vote on the former and have courts.
The international government regulation tool of choice for handling this
would be the ITU, which - unless you are a government - lac
>> it would be a convenience to me for you to send me €1000/mo, and i am
>> sure many other sould line up. let's make it mandatory.
>
> can we agree to leave the straw men out of this discussion? They're
> not helping.
no. even you seem to confuse what is necessary for the ncc to maintain
a ri
> In these days of political interest in how the internet is 'managed' the
> RIRs need to do more than 'just maintain an accurate registry'. The
> internet is a crucial part of modern life. Abuse is considered to be a
> serious problem. What you are saying is that you don't give a dam about
> a
Randy Bush wrote:
> it would be a convenience to me for you to send me €1000/mo, and i am
> sure many other sould line up. let's make it mandatory.
can we agree to leave the straw men out of this discussion? They're not
helping.
Nick
> I may be in za physically, but the infrastructure of my current
> employers are in EU, anyway, as you said already it is a convenience
> for ops to have abuse-c but the point is that it is actually
> convenient for a whole lot of others (incl me)
it would be a convenience to me for you to send m
>> so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an
>> email address where we can send mail to which there will be no response?
>
> you could just as easily make the same arguments about admin-c or tech-c.
no. being able to contact them is necessary for the ncc to maintain
Randy Bush wrote:
> so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an
> email address where we can send mail to which there will be no response?
you could just as easily make the same arguments about admin-c or tech-c.
Nick
On 03/03/2016 11:49, Randy Bush wrote:
In these days of political interest in how the internet is 'managed' the
RIRs need to do more than 'just maintain an accurate registry'. The
internet is a crucial part of modern life. Abuse is considered to be a
serious problem. What you are saying is that
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 c
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 19:35:49 +0900
Randy Bush wrote:
> >> it would be a convenience to me for you to send me €1000/mo, and i
> >> am sure many other sould line up. let's make it mandatory.
> > can we agree to leave the straw men out of this discussion? They're
> > not helping.
> no. even you se
On 03/03/2016 11:35, Randy Bush wrote:
it would be a convenience to me for you to send me €1000/mo, and i am
sure many other sould line up. let's make it mandatory.
can we agree to leave the straw men out of this discussion? They're
not helping.
no. even you seem to confuse what is neces
On 03/03/2016 11:32, Randy Bush wrote:
so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an
email address where we can send mail to which there will be no response?
you could just as easily make the same arguments about admin-c or tech-c.
no. being able to contact them i
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 10:30:27AM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Randy Bush wrote:
> > so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an
> > email address where we can send mail to which there will be no response?
>
> you could just as easily make the same arguments abou
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 19:26:18 +0900
Randy Bush wrote:
> > I may be in za physically, but the infrastructure of my current
> > employers are in EU, anyway, as you said already it is a convenience
> > for ops to have abuse-c but the point is that it is actually
> > convenient for a whole lot of other
>> really? and how does abuse-c affect the effective operation of the
>> ncc resource registry.
>
> it makes iet easier for the ncc to know who deals with abuse issues
> which includes, but is not limited to: law enforcement (kiddie porn,
> etc etc), the sync of warrants for courts and a few other
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 19:10:06 +0900
Randy Bush wrote:
> >> really? and how does abuse-c affect the effective operation of the
> >> ncc resource registry.
> > it makes iet easier for the ncc to know who deals with abuse issues
> > which includes, but is not limited to: law enforcement (kiddie porn,
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 18:51:03 +0900
Randy Bush wrote:
> > there has to be accurate records for abuse-c
> really? and how does abuse-c affect the effective operation of the
> ncc resource registry.
>
it makes iet easier for the ncc to know who deals with abuse issues
which includes, but is not li
> there has to be accurate records for abuse-c
really? and how does abuse-c affect the effective operation of the ncc
resource registry.
abuse-c is a convenience for ops.
> many network managers do not respond/reply to abuse, this does not
> mean that the complaints are not actioned, for exampl
On 3 Mar 2016, at 19:25, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an
>>> email address where we can send mail to which there will be no response?
>>
>> The RIPE Database is full of email addresses. If I don't know which one
>> is intended to r
On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:25:50 +0900
Randy Bush wrote:
> where you define responsibility. the ncc is not a regulator, it is a
> coordinator. if you want to be told how to run your network by weenie
> vigilantes, go to arin.
> randy
>
whahahaha
I think the take away here is that abuse-c should c
> If you put an address that does not handle abuse in abuse-c: you
> have just inserted incorrect data into the database. IMO that
> should not be the job of the NCC...
if you force folk to put in abuse-c, there will be non-responsive
email addresses. get over it.
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 08:10:33AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
i am hesitant 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.
i suspect they will listen to their management bef
>> so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an
>> email address where we can send mail to which there will be no response?
>
> The RIPE Database is full of email addresses. If I don't know which one
> is intended to receive abuse complaints by responsible network manag
[ i may be totally misunderstanding things here, but i never bought
mandatory abuse-c in the first place ]
so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an
email address where we can send mail to which there will be no response?
i am hesitant to mandate behavior beyond t
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 04:14:18 +0100
denis wrote:
> On 03/03/2016 01:44, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> If you put an address that does not handle abuse in abuse-c: you
> >> have just inserted incorrect data into the database. IMO that
> >> should not be the job of the NCC...
> > if you force folk to put in
On 03/03/2016 01:44, Randy Bush wrote:
If you put an address that does not handle abuse in abuse-c: you
have just inserted incorrect data into the database. IMO that
should not be the job of the NCC...
if you force folk to put in abuse-c, there will be non-responsive
email addresses. get ove
Hi Randy
On 03/03/2016 00:10, Randy Bush wrote:
[ i may be totally misunderstanding things here, but i never bought
mandatory abuse-c in the first place ]
so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an
email address where we can send mail to which there will be no r
denis wrote:
> There is nothing special about legacy resources or legacy resource
> holders. They are IP addresses just like all the others. [...] From a
> moral, ethical and community point of view there should be no
> difference in the way either is treated.
These are good principals.
I suppor
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016, Ruediger Volk wrote:
As someone with legacy space (and who takes issue with RIPE NCC about
certain policies) I have no problem with abuse-c. I defined it ages ago
on all inetnums because that is the right thing to do.
-Hank
Dear colleagues,
I object to passing the po
78 matches
Mail list logo
