Hi all,
I think this policy proposal is a positive move.
Regards
Elise Vennéguès
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
evaluation.
Hervé
-Message d'origine-
De : anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net] De la part de Nick
Hilliard
Envoyé : lundi 9 octobre 2017 13:01
À : Michele Neylon - Blacknight
Cc : ox; Gert Doering; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-0
Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> The current situation is that abuse-c can be populated with rubbish.
> The email addresses can be completely non-functioning.
> That is the real and current issue.
the real issue is that this is a complex layer 9 problem inside each
organisation, and although c
Gert
The current situation is that abuse-c can be populated with rubbish. The email
addresses can be completely non-functioning.
That is the real and current issue.
Whether organisations will start actually acting on abuse reports etc., is a
whole other issue and while it definitely merits dis
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 09:19:02 +0200
Gert Doering wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:54:14AM +0200, ox wrote:
> > +
> > requiring abuse email (RR data) to be valid and functional is a very
> > basic tenet (as it relates to morality and ethics as well as RR
> > "goals") +
>
> True. This i
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:54:14AM +0200, ox wrote:
> +
> requiring abuse email (RR data) to be valid and functional is a very
> basic tenet (as it relates to morality and ethics as well as RR "goals")
> +
True. This is the goal, and I share that.
But I'm sceptic on whether the part
2017 08:35
À : ox
Cc : anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c
Validation)
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:13:32AM +0200, ox wrote:
> clearly you are supportive of this as non support of this makes no
> sense other than to derail
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 08:35:14 +0200
Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi, always good to hear your voice :)
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:13:32AM +0200, ox wrote:
> > clearly you are supportive of this as non support of this makes no
> > sense other than to derail ethical and moral behavior towards publi
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:13:32AM +0200, ox wrote:
> clearly you are supportive of this as non support of this makes no
> sense other than to derail ethical and moral behavior towards public
> owned allocated resources.
That's an invalid conclusion. Someone might share the same goal ("have
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 11:29:38 + (UTC)
denis walker wrote:
> Just because that policy didn't force people to enter valid
> information with a threat of deregistration is no reason for anyone
> to enter junk into the database. There has always been a condition of
> membership that people enter and
t information in the RIPE Database. A policy for verifying email
addresses was left for another day...that day seems to be now...
cheersdenis
From: ox
To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net"
Sent: Thursday, 5 October 2017, 6:00
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (
a response. so, it is semantics...
> I don't understand why possible deregistration is listed as an
> argument 'against' the proposal.
>
fake data?
> The arguments listed as supporting the proposal, in my mind, read
> like a marketing brochure. I don't think t
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
In either case the numbers will speak for themselves and any comments without
seeing them are going to be premature.
Never mind the RIPE NCC staff effort costing – does someone have numbers on the
# of ASNs with invalid abuse-c information, and whether there are significant
clusters of such ASN
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> I am sure an impact assessment would work – my point was that a lot
> of the criticism so far has been jumping to conclusions over the
> impact.
That's not an unreasonable comment, but the flip side is also true: the
policy makes an a-priori assumption that this is
we have available?
> >
> >
> >
> > --srs
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *anti-abuse-wg on behalf of
> > Andreas Worbs
> > *Organization: *Artfiles New Media GmbH
> > *Date: *Wednesday, 13
; Andreas Worbs
> *Organization: *Artfiles New Media GmbH
> *Date: *Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 3:52 PM
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular
> abuse-c Validation)
>
>
>
> I support thi
behalf of
> Andreas Worbs
> *Organization: *Artfiles New Media GmbH
> *Date: *Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 3:52 PM
> *To: *
> *Subject: *Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular
> abuse-c Validation)
>
>
>
> I support this proposal, it'
we have available?
--srs
From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Andreas Worbs
Organization: Artfiles New Media GmbH
Date: Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 3:52 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c
Validation)
I support this proposal, it's a
I support this proposal, it's a good step in the right direction. Valid
contact (incl abuse-c) information is necessary for such a database.
Also a validation of the abuse-c should be made with the resource
registration for new resources.
Furthermore i don't know why some guys think a resource wi
i-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular
abuse-c Validation)
From: Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, September 12, 2017 12:00 am
To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
> The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to
> reg
> The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to
> regularly validate "abuse-c:" information and to follow up in cases
> where contact information is found to be invalid.
which states:
> b. Arguments opposing the proposal
[...]
> If organisations are not cooperative, the RIPE NC
Dear Sergey,
Thank you for your question. These are the kinds of things that our formal
impact analysis will cover in the Review Phase. This is the best time to
explore these topics in more depth.
However, our initial understanding is that the proposal aims to identify and
fix invalid abuse-ma
--
Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c
Validation)
From: Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net>
Date: Thu, September 07, 2017 9:59 pm
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-02, "Regular abuse-c Validation", is no
Marco
I think this policy proposal is a positive move and I have no reservations in
supporting it.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.blog/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 918
Hi Marco,
Thank you for the very good proposal.
The one of opposing arguments is:
> If organisations are not cooperative, the RIPE NCC ultimately has the
> possibility to
> close their RIPE NCC membership and deregister their Internet number
> resources.
How RIPE NCC is going to deal with not
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-02, "Regular abuse-c Validation", is now
available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to regularly
validate "abuse-c:" information
and to follow up in cases where contact information is found to be invali
27 matches
Mail list logo
