Dear Denis,
> On 04 Nov 2015, at 01:05, ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> It could be up and running in a month and we could now have more trusted
> ROUTE objects.
Please refrain from making estimates about the amount of work it would take for
the RIPE NCC to implement things.
We are happy to
In message ,
"Niall O'Reilly" wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 00:40:52 +,
>Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>
>> While I do feel that the tripartite nature of the contracts in question
>> is in fact self-evident, I can only agree that my opinion on this point
>> is not informed by either a law degre
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 00:40:52 +,
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> While I do feel that the tripartite nature of the contracts in question
> is in fact self-evident, I can only agree that my opinion on this point
> is not informed by either a law degree, a "bar card" (as we say here
> in this coun
In message ,
"Niall O'Reilly" wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:24:48 +,
>Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>=20
>> However in lieu of that, I feel compelled to (re-)assert that
>> which seems self-evident, i.e. that RIPE is indeed a third-party
>> beneficiary within all LIR/end-user contracts, and
In message <563eb931.9030...@yahoo.co.uk>,
denis wrote:
>... {lengthy discussion of contractual issues snipped} ...
I think we may be getting lost in the weeds here, so I'd like to
back up and just briefly summarise the view from 30,000 feet,
and then make a rather simple informal proposal.
F
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 23:24:48 +,
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> However in lieu of that, I feel compelled to (re-)assert that
> which seems self-evident, i.e. that RIPE is indeed a third-party
> beneficiary within all LIR/end-user contracts, and that it is
> explicitly named as such therein.
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 all between R
> On 7 Nov 2015, at 23:24, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> I only mentioned it because (a) the Wikipedia entry relating to
> this goes into some lengthy... and interesting... discussion of
> the various complexities introduced when third parties are named
> in contracts and also because (b) in my
In message ,
Fearghas Mckay wrote:
>
>> On 7 Nov 2015, at 21:13, Ronald F. Guilmette
>wrote:
>>=20
>> P.S. By a very strange coincidence, I was recently investigating one
>> particular spammed-for web site which, on its Terms and Conditions
>> page, made what seemed at the time to be a rather
> On 7 Nov 2015, at 21:13, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> P.S. By a very strange coincidence, I was recently investigating one
> particular spammed-for web site which, on its Terms and Conditions
> page, made what seemed at the time to be a rather obscure refrence to
> an equally obscure UK law
In message <20151106224453.gg47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:38:52PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
>>
>>But the RIPE NCC isn't an official party in that contract. The
>>contract is between end user and LIR.
>
>Well... Considering that such a con
In message ,
Sander Steffann wrote:
>The contract between the end user and the LIR must comply with
>https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-637. At the minimum, all
>contracts must include:
>
>- Notice that the LIR is responsible for liaising with the resource
>holder to keep registration
As sascha says and for once I agree with him, It can be argued that the LIR is
a mere intermediary in this transaction, and executing contracts with the end
user while standing in for ripe ncc.
Like, say, a VW car dealer - who sells you a Passat TDI diesel car and their
name is on all the paper
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:38:52PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
But the RIPE NCC isn't an official party in that contract. The
contract is between end user and LIR.
Well... Considering that such a contract must be submitted to,
and approved by, the RIPE NCC (or it will not result in the
assig
Hi Ronald,
> On the one hand, you say that all these entities (both people and
> businesses) have consented to have RIPE NCC store and distribute
> their contact data. On the other hand you say that RIPE NCC has
> no knowledge of the terms and conditions of the contracts they have
> signed. Give
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 all between RIPE / RIPE NCC and the entities
>> whose data is in
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:46:44PM -0500, Jeffrey Race wrote:
I said that the mechanism by which the
internet operates was slackly designed and
is slackly operated so has become a cesspool of
criminality.
Yes. In the same way that roads have been designed without police
checkpoints every few 10
You have misunderstood the English words.
I said that the mechanism by which the
internet operates was slackly designed and
is slackly operated so has become a cesspool of
criminality.
Jeffrey Race
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:14:22 +, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:57:
A bit of a correction here.
They’re all one of these three (with the vast majority being in #1)
1. Victims of crime / fraud - and get to pay for all the security required to
block it and to ensure that their customers remain secure + don’t abuse
services
2. Victims of crime / fraud who can’t
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:57:18AM -0500, Jeffrey Race wrote:
The internet resource management mechanism as managed by RIRs and
LIRS is "of a criminal nature", do I understand you correctly?
The mechanism is the internet
Uhuh. I guess it's just as well that barely any operators seem to read
t
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:22:30 +, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
>>though this makes inevitable the criminal nature of the
>>mechanism they are charged with managing.
>
>The internet resource management mechanism as managed by RIRs and
>LIRS is "of a criminal nature", do I understand you correctly?
Th
On 06/11/2015 15:22, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 10:01:33AM -0500, Jeffrey Race wrote:
The matter of the "defining discussion goal" will have to be
taken up in order to make progress on this list's putative
purpose of "anti-abuse."
Had you read the charter of this WG, yo
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 10:01:33AM -0500, Jeffrey Race wrote:
At present the internet is a cesspool of crime without
effective mechanisms of accountability and traceability. An
As an, albeit small, part of the Internet, I take exception to
this statement.
outsider viewing this thread (and
>From a systems perspective the discussion below is exactly
backwards.
A millions-user system dependent for correct operation (e.g. one not
promoting abuse [the subject of this list]) must be [re]designed to
place the onus on the user not the registrar. Rule: if your data are
not correct, you ar
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 11:56:51 +0100, denis wrote:
>Add to that all the possible language issues and I am not sure how you
>will expect the RIPE NCC to validate all this personal contact data with
>people who they have no relationship with and who may have never heard
>of the RIPE NCC or RIPE. Any
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 07:23:39PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
That is what floating this in the db wg will establish - whether
it is actually a member revolt or one individual???s opinion
Consensus is a wonderful thing when it is achieved
You're touching on a very sore point for me.
That is what floating this in the db wg will establish - whether it is actually
a member revolt or one individual’s opinion
Consensus is a wonderful thing when it is achieved
> On 06-Nov-2015, at 7:19 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
>
> Not even considering the inevitable members' revolt.
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:56:51AM +0100, denis wrote:
Add to that all the possible language issues and I am not sure how you
will expect the RIPE NCC to validate all this personal contact data
with people who they have no relationship with and who may have never
heard of the RIPE NCC or RIPE
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 accountability for these 'ac
On 06/11/2015 05:09, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <20151106003148.gx47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 03:48:43PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Laugh now... while you can.
Threats again, is it? I call on the chairs to point out to th
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 03:58:26PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
[..]
> >This really does matter. Even with a valid RIPE ASN they cannot 'steal'
> >RIPE address space.
>
> Really???
>
> If so, that's great news!
>
> Did everyone finally agree to use only fully authenticated route
> ann
In message <563bf7a2.7090...@yahoo.co.uk>,
denis wrote:
>Hi Ronald
>
>On 06/11/2015 00:48, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> In message <20151105220739.gw47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
>> "Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
>>> Please, Ron, RTFM for *once* before throwing accusations about.
>>
>> It wasn't an
In message <20151106003148.gx47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 03:48:43PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>
>>Laugh now... while you can.
>
>Threats again, is it? I call on the chairs to point out to this
>individual that n.a.n.a.e tactics are not
In message <563bf492.2020...@yahoo.co.uk>,
denis wrote:
>On 06/11/2015 00:58, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> In message <563bdb1c.4020...@yahoo.co.uk>,
>> denis wrote:
>>> This really does matter. Even with a valid RIPE ASN they cannot 'steal'
>>> RIPE address space.
>>
>> Really???
>>
>> If so
In message <563bf1e0.3090...@yahoo.co.uk>,
denis wrote:
>First of all I apologise if I have mixed up some of your views, some of
>Sacha's views and some of my own views. If I have I did so with good
>intentions. I was not trying to derail anything, but I disagree that
>this is a simple discu
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 11:41:32PM +0100, denis wrote:
When it comes to getting an ASN the AUT-NUM does require reference to
a PERSON/ROLE object. But you can pick any PERSON or ROLE object in
the database and reference them. Technically there is no cross
checking. The 'owner' of those objects
Hi Ronald
On 06/11/2015 00:48, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <20151105220739.gw47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
... All the mntner object does is grant access to change a
ripedb object. It says nothing about who operates a resource or
what they are doing with
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 regards to this spe
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 03:48:43PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Laugh now... while you can.
Threats again, is it? I call on the chairs to point out to this
individual that n.a.n.a.e tactics are not welcome on this list.
I also end my participation in this discussion here. Given that
you
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 of all the
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 regards to this specific incident (and this specific set of what loo
In message <20151105220739.gw47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 01:50:37PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>It has been well more than just one or two cases, and I suspect
>>that you know that. Only one or two GLARING cases per month
>>perhaps, bu
In message <20151105214840.gu47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 01:31:31PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>>1) All resource holders are presumed to be bad actors and all of
>>>their data must be kept in a database, their correctness to be
>>>stric
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 of all the good folk to trip up a few of the
>bad folk.
Excuse
HI Ronald
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 regards to this specific incident (and this specific set of what looks
to be 3 inter-related rogue ASNs) I myself don't really
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 01:50:37PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
It has been well more than just one or two cases, and I suspect
that you know that. Only one or two GLARING cases per month
perhaps, but over time it has added up.
so what? the NCC has 14,000 members (or thereabouts) and ther
In message <20151104184211.gm47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
>A few people or companies who act in bad faith do not change this
>fact and there is no reason to put the entire membership under
>general suspicion and waste its time and fees with elaborate data
>collection /
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 01:31:31PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <20151104143230.gk47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
I really would like to be there with a video camera the next time
you find yourself having to go through airport security.
YouTube stardom awaits us.
Yeah, but not min
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 01:31:31PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
1) All resource holders are presumed to be bad actors and all of
their data must be kept in a database, their correctness to be
strictly enforced.
I am sure that your view is sincerly held, carefully considered,
and shared by
In message <20151104143230.gk47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
>No. Just NO. I am, frankly, flabbergasted at this mindset:
>
>1) All resource holders are presumed to be bad actors and all of
>their data must be kept in a database, their correctness to be
>strictly enforced.
In message <637758753.2826426.1446595528880.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com>,
ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>Ronald
>"I neither mentioned nor asked about out-of-region objects."
>"then proceeded to announce a bunch of self-evidently bogus routes to relat=
>ively large swaths of APNIC address space.
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
Ronald,
On 04/11/2015 20:49, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Brian,
My apologies for not responding yesterday. I've been working on
what I think is a REALLY important project... one that even
relates to some of what's been discussed here... and I just
got totally caught up in that yesterday (and pr
On 04/11/2015 23:09, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message ,
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Right now, most other lists that I see this thread start up on, there
are a few people who defend RIPE NCC - and a lot of people who dump on
it for this kind of thing.
I like to think that I am neithe
Hi Ronald
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 01:10:01PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
I'm just putting myself in their shoes. If I were them, and I was
asked my opinion about something that, in the short run at least.
would, increase my workload, I would scream, holler, tear my
hair out, pound my fis
I don't think it can be done without turning the NCC into
something like the NSA and even then I doubt it would be 100%
effective.
Many governments throughout history have tried to have all the
data they can on their citizens...
I am not persuaded that this is at all a valid or fair comparison.
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 02:57:21PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Just curious... How would automated verification of snail-mail
addresses and/or positive automated verification of contact phone
numbers implicate any contractual issues?
This particular mechanism may or may not. That's for NC
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 02:44:15PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
That having been said it might still be either necessary or
advisable to put a CAPTCHA in front of the RIPE account creation
process, e.g. if there isn't one there already, just to stop
some mindless automaton from trying to cre
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 01:10:01PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
I'm just putting myself in their shoes. If I were them, and I was
asked my opinion about something that, in the short run at least.
would, increase my workload, I would scream, holler, tear my
hair out, pound my fist on the tab
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 12:49:34PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
Police have guns. They have handcuffs. They can arrest people.
As long as RIPE's only power is to kick certain bogus and/or poorly
maintained records out of the data base, there seems little danger
that RIPE will functionall
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:02:42PM +0100, denis wrote:
It has served very well over the years but it does have limitations
now. This is a database. You put stuff in and get stuff out. When you
need a full day course to learn the basics of putting stuff in, it
shouts there is a problem.
I don'
In message <20151103143413.gi47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:14:54PM +0100, Esa Laitinen wrote:
>>as you seem to have quite a knowledge about this I'm sure you
>>already have an idea on how the data can be up to date. Care to
>>share?
>
>I don't
In message ,
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>Right now, most other lists that I see this thread start up on, there
>are a few people who defend RIPE NCC - and a lot of people who dump on
>it for this kind of thing.
I like to think that I am neither defending nor dumping on either
RIPE or RIPE N
In message <20151103134918.gf47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
>Any contractual changes will also need membership approval via GM
>vote anyway.
Just curious... How would automated verification of snail-mail
addresses and/or positive automated verification of contact phone
n
In message <0f2494d8-d060-4496-807a-abbe30d26...@gmail.com>,
(in response to Sascha Luck)
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>I doubt -
>
>1. You are being asked to code this for RIPE NCC
>...
For the record, I agree completely with Sascha Luck on this one.
CAPTCHAs are an awful idea in this conte
In message <20151103134248.ge47...@cilantro.c4inet.net>,
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:28:03PM +0100, David Hofstee wrote:
>>In that line of thought: I would like email validation on a
>>regular basis. There are so many email addresses that do not
>>work properly (what t
In message <78C35D6C1A82D243B830523B4193CF5F9F4EF1D606@SBS1.blinker.local>,
David Hofstee wrote:
>Neither do I. But what I do think is that RIPE should do the work that it
>is set out to do, namely registration of data. It should do that very well.
>Make sure that the data is sufficient, valid a
In message <7780cec5-e3ef-444b-a734-8de4dfb57...@steffann.nl>,
Sander Steffann wrote:
>I now understand your ideas better, and understand that you are looking
>for a first step in improving the database accuracy. Not looking for a
>complete solution as I was :) I think we reached the point whe
Brian,
My apologies for not responding yesterday. I've been working on
what I think is a REALLY important project... one that even
relates to some of what's been discussed here... and I just
got totally caught up in that yesterday (and probably will
again today).
In message <56388a61.7040...@he
Do you feel that the numbers community comparing notes with the ICANN whois EWG
would help?
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-09-25-en
> On 05-Nov-2015, at 1:32 AM, denis wrote:
>
> Seriously, with a review of the data model we can end up with:
> -a lot less personal data in 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 ar
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:17:10PM +0100, denis wrote:
That may well be right, but if the sponsor cannot understand the
language of the resource holder the validation may not be very
effective.
The price you pay for a globalised society. I can see your point
but this isn't something you can pre
Hi Denis,
Op 4 nov. 2015, om 18:17 heeft denis het volgende
geschreven:
> On 04/11/2015 15:32, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 12:05:28AM +, ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> the sponsoring LIR should be restricted to an LIR in the same
>>> geographical/political/language a
Hi Sascha
On 04/11/2015 15:32, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 12:05:28AM +, ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
the sponsoring LIR should be restricted to an LIR in the same
geographical/political/language area as the end user resource
holder. Otherwise it could render the whole n
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 11:30:50AM -0500, Jeffrey Race wrote:
From an engineering standpoint you absolutely must have
at least one redundant channel, with an acknowledgement
mechanism (e.g. registered mail). But fax is also possible for this
because the receipt is stamped with date/time of rec
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:32:30 +, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
>There is a need to be able to reach a resource holder to notify
>them of abuse coming from their network (the abuse-c) or
>technical problems (the tech-c). There is NO need to have the
>street address and phone number of every *person* "wh
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 12:05:28AM +, ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
the sponsoring LIR should be restricted to an LIR in the same
geographical/political/language area as the end user resource
holder. Otherwise it could render the whole notion of an LIR
validating their sponsored user's data po
Thanks - I've hung around apricot and apnic long enough to know how that works
(though these past few years I can't travel so I'm simply on the apricot /
Sanog fellowship and program committees)
I haven't ever attended a ripe meeting though and wasn't aware of this wg - in
my circles (security
Hi all
Interesting conversation. It took me a while to read it all. I would like to
add a few of my own thoughts based on my experiences. Although I will target my
comments in response to specific points raised by many of the contributors to
the discussion, I offer all my comments with the inte
: dinsdag 3 november 2015 16:53
Aan: David Hofstee
CC: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Onderwerp: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 04:17:19PM +0100, David Hofstee wrote:
> Every email address in the RIPE database should work. There is a
> reason to register an email addres
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 04:17:19PM +0100, David Hofstee wrote:
> Every email address in the RIPE database should work. There is a
> reason to register an email address (and that is not for historical
> purposes). There should be someone that is able to read those emails
> (or it should serve i
-
Van: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Namens Sascha Luck
[ml]
Verzonden: dinsdag 3 november 2015 14:43
Aan: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Onderwerp: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] WHOIS (AS204224)
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:28:03PM +0100, David Hofstee wrote:
>In that line of thought: I wo
In that line of thought: I would like email validation on a
regular basis. There are so many email addresses that do not
work properly (what then is the sense of registering invalid
data?).
Actually, I think all such schemes would be counter-productive.
End-users do not want to, and in may case
If someone regular is willing to set a direction that I see a chance of
achieving consensus with - I will contribute as much as I can when
participating remotely. I do believe in putting my effort where my mouth is :)
--srs
> On 03-Nov-2015, at 8:07 PM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>
> Suresh, your
Ah. I keep thinking anti phishing working group
Apologies :)
--srs
> On 03-Nov-2015, at 7:45 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:25:44PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> If you can tell me just how a consensus at APWG and MAAWG, say,
>> or on various actua
Just from poor souls who are tasked with cleaning up all the mess from all this
abuse
--srs
> On 03-Nov-2015, at 7:29 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
>
> All the "outraged howls" I've seen in this thread are from
> so-called "security experts" with evidently little or no
> experience in LIR operat
On 03/11/2015 14:14, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 01:49:18PM +, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:13:17PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
I would actually prefer any such proposal to come from within
the regular RIPE community, rather than from one
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:14:54PM +0100, Esa Laitinen wrote:
as you seem to have quite a knowledge about this I'm sure you
already have an idea on how the data can be up to date. Care to
share?
I don't think it can be done without turning the NCC into
something like the NSA and even then I dou
Dear Sascha,
as you seem to have quite a knowledge about this I'm sure you already have
an idea on how the data can be up to date. Care to share?
Yours,
esa
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 02:28:03PM +0100, David Hofstee wrote:
>
>> In that li
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:25:44PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
If you can tell me just how a consensus at APWG and MAAWG, say,
or on various actually security focused lists, that the RIPE
community needs policy changes is going to make an iota of
difference to what policies get implement
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:25:44PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> If you can tell me just how a consensus at APWG and MAAWG, say,
> or on various actually security focused lists, that the RIPE community
> needs policy changes is going to make an iota of difference to what
> policies ge
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 01:49:18PM +, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:13:17PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >I would actually prefer any such proposal to come from within
> >the regular RIPE community, rather than from one of us
> >outsiders.
>
> For once I a
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:45PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
I doubt -
1. You are being asked to code this for RIPE NCC
Irrelevant, I'm talking about the LIR contacts or end-users being
made to deal with this.
2. You get all that much spam to filter out - as far as I can
see from l
Hi Sasha,
>> I would actually prefer any such proposal to come from within
>> the regular RIPE community, rather than from one of us
>> outsiders.
>
> For once I agree completely. If this goes to an actual proposal,
> this needs to be in APWG as it would be:
>
> a) address policy b) affecting th
If you can tell me just how a consensus at APWG and MAAWG, say, or on various
actually security focused lists, that the RIPE community needs policy changes
is going to make an iota of difference to what policies get implemented by RIPE
NCC
Right now, most other lists that I see this thread star
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:13:17PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
I would actually prefer any such proposal to come from within
the regular RIPE community, rather than from one of us
outsiders.
For once I agree completely. If this goes to an actual proposal,
this needs to be in APWG as i
I doubt -
1. You are being asked to code this for RIPE NCC
2. You get all that much spam to filter out - as far as I can see from
linkedin, your previous experience is all in desiging and running IXPs and
coordinating peering - I wouldn’t presume to argue with you about any of those.
So while
On 03-Nov-2015, at 3:50 PM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>
> However the core point here is I will, once again, extend an invite to you,
> to Suresh, to Sascha, to Jeffrey, to Aftab, to everyone on this list who is
> interested in this issue, to work on a policy that might help?
There have been some pr
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
