anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Brian Nisbet
Date: Monday 17 August 2020 at 09:42
To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net"
Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Review Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Reminder
Folks,
Just to remind you all, the current Review Phase is formally due to end
+353 (0)59 9183090
>
> ---
>
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,
> Sleaty Road, Graiguecullen, Carlow, R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>
>
>
> *From: *anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Brian
> Nis
Folks,
Just to remind you all, the current Review Phase is formally due to end
tomorrow. If you haven't, then now is an excellent opportunity to look at
Petrit's email from the 22nd of July and to read the Impact Analysis from the
NCC and make any comments you wish to make.
Thanks,
Brian
Hi Jordi,
Please find below the answer to your questions:
- We have provided our own data from 2019 to be used as a comparison. I do see
why the numbers derived from our data would be a gross overestimation and why
any other RIR set of data would provide a more accurate estimation. Even if
Hi Petrit,
Petrit Hasani wrote on 20/07/2020 18:46:
The financial cost approximation of a proposal is not part of the
Impact Analysis and the Policy Development Process, so we have not
made a calculation. As too many factors have to be taken into account
that we can't estimate realistically at
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:43 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
[...]
> [Jordi] We agree here, no doubt. I just wanted to stress the point that many
> folks in the community may still believe that we have over 92.5% correct
> abuse mailboxes, which is not the case (I said
Hi Petrit,
Tks for the quick response!
Responding in-line below.
El 20/7/20 20:07, "Petrit Hasani" escribió:
Hi Jordi,
Thank you for your feedback. I will try to address each point, please do
let me know if I miss something.
I would like to start with your last comment about
Hi Jordi,
Thank you for your feedback. I will try to address each point, please do let me
know if I miss something.
I would like to start with your last comment about implementation in other
RIRs, which may help clarify some of your other concerns as well.
The Impact Analysis is based on the
Hello Nick,
The financial cost approximation of a proposal is not part of the Impact
Analysis and the Policy Development Process, so we have not made a calculation.
As too many factors have to be taken into account that we can't estimate
realistically at this stage of the PDP.
I would like to
Hi Petrit,
Tks for the impact analysis!
However, I think there are some aspects not well covered.
1) It is clear, unless you can provide stats about that, that we don't really
know if the 92.5% of the automated validations check are *really* correct in
the sense of being able to receive
Petrit Hasani wrote on 20/07/2020 14:07:
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this
four week Review Phase is to continue discussion of the proposal,
taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full
draft RIPE Policy Document.
This is the second
Because using a form mean a manual process.
You can't automate the forms, unless *all* the LIRs use the same form. If you
have a very small number of abuse cases to report, it may be feasible, but not
in normal circumstances.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 20/7/20 15:54, "anti-abuse-wg en
I don't understand why it would exclude the use of forms to submit abuse
information.
When submitting by a form, it reaches the host nearly 100% of the time.
The same cannot be said for email based submissions.
On 20/07/2020 11:07 pm, Petrit Hasani wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Policy proposal
Dear colleagues,
Policy proposal 2019-04, "Validation of "abuse-mailbox"", is now in the Review
Phase.
This proposal aims to have the RIPE NCC validate "abuse-c:” information more
often and introduces a new validation process.
The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis to support the
14 matches
Mail list logo
