Hej Thomas,
du skrev inte vilka partners som kan erbjuda slaves.
Förr ringde/mailade jag st...@swip.net och fick alltid hjälp. Kan ha
berott på att volvo var en av deras första kunder :-)
Jag har hittat clodns, och testar med dem. Har du några synpunkter på dem ?
De svenska ISP jag talat med ver
From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Thomas
Hungenberg
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 6:37 PM
To: Carlos Friaças
Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
On 19.02.19 13:23, Carlos Friaças wrote:
> Regarding the non-"DE" the figures are worse,
On 19.02.19 13:23, Carlos Friaças wrote:
> Regarding the non-"DE" the figures are worse, right?
The statistics are based on our automated reports only.
Our automated system is sending 8,000+ reports per day - but only
addresses abuse contacts for networks registered with country code
"DE" directly
Sorry, my eyes were wrong. I did read 2019-02 :-)
Carlos
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
I guess the subject is wrong :-)
I guess the subject is wrong :-)
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Thomas Hungenberg wrote:
FYI: Some longer-term statistics on this:
Since January 2018, we have identified 157 invalid abuse contacts
(our abuse reports bounced) for network objects registered with
country code "DE" which we reported to
FYI: Some longer-term statistics on this:
Since January 2018, we have identified 157 invalid abuse contacts
(our abuse reports bounced) for network objects registered with
country code "DE" which we reported to RIPE NCC.
RIPE NCC reached out to their members responsible for the
respective objects.
brian.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
> -Original Message-
> From: anti-abuse-wg On Behalf Of
> Alexander Isavnin
> Sent: Tuesday 27 March 2018 14:39
> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on
Thanks for question, i really forgot to add important clarification paragraph
for objection.
On 2018-03-27 14:50:13 CET, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> Alexander,
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> I'd just like to clarify something, are you objecting wholly to this proposal
> because you would prefer stronger/
[mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of
> Alexander Isavnin
> Sent: 27 March 2018 13:46
> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
>
> Dear Brian, colleagues!
>
> I would like to remind about one of my objections:
>
Dear Brian, colleagues!
I would like to remind about one of my objections:
This policy will not seriously improve data quality, because it allows to check
only one field in database.
If one wants really to improve data quality by automated checks, more
complicated policy should be developed.
A
Thomas Hungenberg(t...@cert-bund.de) on 2018.03.23 10:39:53 +0100:
>
> We had to deal with 40+ invalid abuse contacts only for resources
> registered to German holders in the past three months.
> Most messages bounced with "user unknown".
>
> We tried to reach out to the resource holders to get t
We had to deal with 40+ invalid abuse contacts only for resources
registered to German holders in the past three months.
Most messages bounced with "user unknown".
We tried to reach out to the resource holders to get the invalid
abuse contacts fixed. If that failed, we reported the case to
RIPE N
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:23:18PM +0100, Janos Zsako wrote:
> At the same time, I do see some benefit in checking regularly the provided
> e-mail address, because I am convinced that there will always be cases where
> people simply forget to update the database. If they are reminded, they wil
ven having to receive them.
---- Original Message ----
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
From: Janos Zsako <zs...@iszt.hu>
Date: Tue, March 20, 2018 11:23 pm
To: Name <phish...@storey.xxx>, anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Dear Anonymous Name,
> /"A
Dear Anonymous Name,
/"And an annual checking would ensure that the contacts remain more
up-to-date."/
Yes, an annual checking would do that. This isn't an annual checking. It
involves checking if a mail server exists.
I am afraid I was not clear last time. I wrote:
"One can determine with
Name,
Why are you remaining anonymous ?
Hervé
De : anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net] De la part de Name
Envoyé : mardi 20 mars 2018 07:56
À : anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
"And an annual checking would ensure tha
-- Original Message
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
From: <herve.clem...@orange.com>
Date: Tue, March 20, 2018 3:52 am
To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
As co-authors, if we propose this policy, that's b
-
De : anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net] De la part de ox
Envoyé : lundi 19 mars 2018 03:23
À : JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:43:54 +
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
mailt
On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:43:54 +
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer, but deal a lot with them, and I'm sure anyway,
> there are more informed voices even from the NCC that can confirm,
> and actually it will be interesting to confirm.
>
+1
I would like to also p
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 01:29:14PM +0100, Karl-Josef Ziegler wrote:
> Andre Ox wrote:
>
> > But having some sort of policy is a start, even though
> > what we are actually ending up with is not much at all and even then
> > there are those that think even having a watery (watered down,
> > to
anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Erik Bais
Fecha: domingo, 18 de marzo de 2018, 13:22
Para: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net"
Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
I still have some serious concerns about this proposal.
I wonder how this might have an effe
I still have some serious concerns about this proposal.
I wonder how this might have an effect on the conduit role of
(transit)-networks.
And if the RIPE NCC will be requested to report (by the community or by legal
court actions) or will be held liable in some way shape or form for the
acc
Andre Ox wrote:
> But having some sort of policy is a start, even though
> what we are actually ending up with is not much at all and even then
> there are those that think even having a watery (watered down,
> toothless, etc) policy is a future threat.
Yes, I agree. Making only a small step - ev
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:52:06 +0100
Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 10:53:55AM +0200, ox wrote:
> > To answer the question though: This proposal does make the world a
> > better place.
> > If a resource holder wishes to be allocated scarce public resources
> > such a resource ho
en do that. They will still be contacting as many people as they were before this policy (which doesn't even need to be a policy) will be introduced.
Original Message ----
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
From: Gert Doering <g...@space.net>
Date:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 10:53:55AM +0200, ox wrote:
> To answer the question though: This proposal does make the world a
> better place.
>
> If a resource holder wishes to be allocated scarce public resources
> such a resource holder should also be responsible about the operations
> of such s
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 08:43:45 +0100
Gert Doering wrote:
> Reading comments like *this* as an argument *for* the proposal makes
> me wonder if I should reconsider being neutral about it.
> What Malcolm said is something that carefully needs to be considered:
> what is the real goal to be achieved, a
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 04:33:47PM -0700, Name wrote:
> So he has no basis of objection, but don't even think
> of implementing something that might actually go towards helping the internet
> in the future, because it's a slippery slope and Adolf Hitler 2.0 will reign
> supreme, even though
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:48:38 +
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 08:59:55AM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> >Ah, ok, my apologies. So, because I'd like to be clear here, you are
> >objecting to this proposal on the basis of something that may or may
> >not happen in the future?
cause then resource owners might actually have to do some work. What a horrible thought.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
From: "Sascha Luck [ml]" <a...@c4inet.net>
Date: Sat, March 17, 2018 1:48 am
To: Brian Nisbet <bria
018 17:04
>> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
>> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> >This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there
>> >
gt; Sent: Friday 16 March 2018 09:28
> To: Brian Nisbet ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
>
> On 16/03/2018 08:59, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> >> Nothing, and I didn't state that it was. The problem is that, once
> >> ac
On 16/03/2018 08:59, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>> Nothing, and I didn't state that it was. The problem is that, once accepted,
>> the implementation is out of the hands of this community or indeed
>> everyone bar the NCC Board. They can make it as onerous and oppressive as
>> they want.
> Ah, ok, my apol
> -Original Message-
> From: Sascha Luck [ml]
> Sent: Thursday 15 March 2018 18:45
> To: Brian Nisbet
> Cc: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:08:29PM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:44:44 +
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:08:29PM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> >For instance, what about the suggested implementation is onerous or
> >oppressive?
> Nothing, and I didn't state that it was. The problem is that, once
> accepted, the
t it?You remind me of the national rifle association in the USA. 30 people get killed in a school, and asking for a basic background check for a firearm purchaser is simply too much to ask for.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
From: "
: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
>This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there
>are many things that can (should) be improved, but getting consensus on
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:57:33PM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Finally we need to address the objections around the possible implications of
organisations *not* following this policy. It is clear that 2017-02 does not
attempt to introduce any additional processes nor change how the NCC would act
oposals in the
future.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet
Fecha: jueves, 15 de marzo de 2018, 18:08
Para: "Sascha Luck [ml]" , "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net"
Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
Sasch
ginal Message-
> From: anti-abuse-wg On Behalf Of
> Sascha Luck [ml]
> Sent: Thursday 15 March 2018 17:04
> To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
> >Th
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 03:33:42PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
This proposal is a first step to catch low hanging fruit. Yes: there are many
things that can (should) be improved, but getting consensus on these
controversial topics is difficult. So the proposers are taking it one step at a
ti
ch 2018 00:40 To: Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net>; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 "If this policy change reaches consensus, the RIPE NCC will proactively validate whether the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute is valid."
co Schmidt ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
"If this policy change reaches consensus, the RIPE NCC will proactively
validate whether the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute is valid."
No it doesn't. How does RIPE loading a syste
n this "policy" that even needs to be implemented as policy.From what is said, RIPE will not check whether an abuse mailbox is valid, but whether a mail server exists at a domain specified.Mail server exists ≠ valid abuse mailbox attribute
Original Message ----
Subje
Dear Malcolm,
On 2018-03-14 14:47:13 CET, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> On 14/03/2018 13:32, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> > Please let me reiterate that the RIPE NCC will not activate the
> > closure procedure simply for failure to maintain the "abuse-mailbox:"
> > attribute.
> >
> > The closure procedure co
Hi,
> Op 14 mrt. 2018, om 15:22 heeft Name het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> This does not address black hole email addresses, nor does it validate that
> an email address is an abuse email address. I could put YOUR email address as
> my abuse contact. Because your email address is valid, it wou
address is not working at all, to complain to RIPE? But your email address does work?How is it that you have spent how ever many months on this garbage, and come out with exactly the same position you were in before hand?
Original Message
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on
On 14/03/2018 13:32, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> Please let me reiterate that the RIPE NCC will not activate the
> closure procedure simply for failure to maintain the "abuse-mailbox:"
> attribute.
>
> The closure procedure could be activated if the resource holder refuses
> to provide correct abuse co
Dear colleagues,
Please allow me to provide some clarification in regards to "relevant
RIPE Policies and RIPE NCC procedures" for this proposal, and some
details around how these have changed over time.
Since 2003, the RIPE IPv4 policy has stated that the RIPE NCC can close
LIRs for reasons such
ly, does it need a change in policy if it's implemented as is? How does it change a single thing?
Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
From: Janos Zsako <zs...@iszt.hu>
Date: Wed, March 14, 2018 11:29 pm
To: N
Dear Anonymous "Name",
How do you check the email address is valid if you don't email it?
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02
I think the NCC will be able to tell more details when the plans are ready.
For now, the relevant part is probably:
The RIPE NCC will valida
s out to be not working can be always reported to the RIPE NCC with the report form.
Original Message
Subject: RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nis...@heanet.ie>
Date: Wed, March 14, 2018 10:31 pm
To: Name <p
5316609040 brian.nis...@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
From: Brian Nisbet
Sent: Wednesday 14 March 2018 11:31
To: 'Name' ; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: RE: SPAM-heanet-- RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 &
Next Steps
"we do not believe rough consensus has been reached."Who spoke out against it, and what did they say? I haven't seen anything that says that consensus has not been reached.What does "consensus" look like?
Original Message ----
Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Dec
t
Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
On 12/03/2018 12:57, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> Finally we need to address the objections around the possible
> implications of organisations *not* following this policy. It is clear
> that 2017-02 does not attempt
On 12/03/2018 12:57, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> Finally we need to address the objections around the possible
> implications of organisations *not* following this policy. It is
> clear that 2017-02 does not attempt to introduce any additional
> processes nor change how the NCC would act in cases where p
Colleagues,
We've been thinking about this for some time and attempting to find a way
through the various comments and messages in regards to 2017-02.
We believe the best option at this point is to extend the review phase of this
proposal for a further 4 weeks as we do not believe rough consens
57 matches
Mail list logo
