Dear colleagues,
I want to formally confirm and underline my contributions to discussions
@RIPE72:
the slight softening of the newer version of proposal 2016-01
does not substantially resolve the concerns I raised in my objection
to the earlier version.
So I uphold my objection for the new version
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 11:18:45AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
I actually hope that we're getting close to perfect address policy after
all these years of tweaking, and most work will happen elsewhere in future!
Bwahahaha :) Maybe, *maybe*, once all the ipv4 space is finally
gone ;p
rgds,
Sasch
On 08/03/2016 10:18, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 10:07:08AM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
AP-WG will be the source of most policies, of course, but keeping an eye
on policy-announce means you can pop in and out of other lists as necessary.
I actually hope that we're getting c
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 10:07:08AM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> AP-WG will be the source of most policies, of course, but keeping an eye
> on policy-announce means you can pop in and out of other lists as necessary.
I actually hope that we're getting close to perfect address policy after
all
On 07/03/2016 22:12, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:08:47AM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
I may have missed the logic behind this. Any RIPE WG can make
policy, why should AA-WG be any different?
aawg is not different, the problem is precisely that any WG can
make policy. There
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> I do not want to be subscribed to every godsdamn mailing list
> @ripe.net, but I *have* to because otherwise some policy will be
> imposed on me that I never even heard about and that supposedly
> "has reached consensus".
There is actuall
Yes of course. I mean to say - legacy IP space isn't immune to compromise or
whatever else that causes phish urls, so every so often a manual step does come
into the process when I run into a comments field
We wouldn't be having this longish discussion otherwise
--srs
> On 08-Mar-2016, at 1:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:08:47AM +, Brian Nisbet wrote:
I may have missed the logic behind this. Any RIPE WG can make
policy, why should AA-WG be any different?
aawg is not different, the problem is precisely that any WG can
make policy. There should be ONE list on which policy is debated
HI Niall
On 07/03/2016 17:48, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:08 PM, denis wrote:
The "abuse-c:" IS standardised. It is well defined and documented as
THE method of defining abuse contact details in the RIPE Database
accordi
Hi Suresh
On 07/03/2016 11:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:08 PM, denis wrote:
The "abuse-c:" IS standardised. It is well defined and documented
as THE method of defining abuse contact details in the RIPE
Database according to the policy. Historically, as I mentioned in
On 07-Mar-2016, at 10:18 PM, Niall O'Reilly 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.
History repeating itself will probably mean more comment fields for a bunch of
v6 IP space as we
On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:08 PM, denis wrote:
The "abuse-c:" IS standardised. It is well defined and documented as
THE method of defining abuse contact details in the RIPE Database
according to the policy. Historically, as I mentioned in ot
> On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:08 PM, denis wrote:
>
> The "abuse-c:" IS standardised. It is well defined and documented as THE
> method of defining abuse contact details in the RIPE Database according to
> the policy. Historically, as I mentioned in other emails, there was
> "abuse-mailbox:" defined
Hi Suresh
On 07/03/2016 10:57, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 07-Mar-2016, at 3:00 PM, Gilles Massen
wrote:
On 07/03/16 10:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
As a reporter of quite a lot of phish - I think having something
that is standardized and machine parseable helps.
Those that reall
On 07-Mar-2016, at 3:00 PM, Gilles Massen wrote:
>
> On 07/03/16 10:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
>> As a reporter of quite a lot of phish - I think having something that
>> is standardized and machine parseable helps.
>>
>> Those that really don’t want to handle reports for a range might
On 07/03/16 10:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> As a reporter of quite a lot of phish - I think having something that
> is standardized and machine parseable helps.
>
> Those that really don’t want to handle reports for a range might want
> to populate something standard there too (and yes, th
On 07-Mar-2016, at 2:48 PM, Gilles Massen wrote:
> And as a reporter, I prefer
> a clear "I don't care" over wasting my time on an ignored report.
>
> So advertising the abuse-c actively: yes, sure. Mandatory: no. Thus
> changing policy in regard to ERX: no (besides, that's poor form, cf
> Peter
Not aiming at Michele...
On 05/03/16 11:54, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
> The issue isn’t that simple. Prior to the introduction of abuse-c
> people would try to contact whatever contact they could find.
The abuse-c as an operational information is certainly useful. The
technical impleme
On 05/03/2016 11:34, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 10:54:45AM +, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
wrote:
Considering the IPv4 space is such a valuable resource now
I’d happily argue that if you do a bad job of managing it
then maybe you shouldn’t have it
You should not forget
On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 10:54:45AM +, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Considering the IPv4 space is such a valuable resource now
I???d happily argue that if you do a bad job of managing it
then maybe you shouldn???t have it
You should not forget to add the "and instead I should have it"
Dear Lu,
Your reasoning fails the logic test because you do not cognize the mismatch
between the operation of "law to enforce things" and the spammer business
model. The loss to no single victim rises above the threshold to initiate
either criminal or civil proceedings. The spammers organiz
Hi there:
> On 5 Mar 2016, at 11:54, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
> wrote:
>
> On 05/03/2016, 09:53, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of h...@anytimechinese.com"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I fail to understand how spammer are legal in certain country has to do
>> with my reasoning or logic.
>>
Hi guys:
I think I really should make myself clear here.
(Sorry for sending 3 mails in a row as I just realise people are taking to me
one by one)
I do not against abuse c or support it, I just don't think it will make much
difference. That's all I have to say about abuse c.
However, I do agai
On 05/03/2016, 09:53, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of h...@anytimechinese.com"
wrote:
>Hi
>
>I fail to understand how spammer are legal in certain country has to do with
>my reasoning or logic.
>
>The argument is about if there is managing position for community to take, my
>answer is no, we ar
Hi Michele:
> On 4 Mar 2016, at 21:55, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi there:
>
> I think the whole notion about we are managing the internet though the policy
> are not correct.
>
> We are not managing the internet, we are book keeping really.
>
> Denis, your argument sta
Hi
I fail to understand how spammer are legal in certain country has to do with
my reasoning or logic.
The argument is about if there is managing position for community to take, my
answer is no, we are not law enforcement and we only do book keeping, we don't
tell people what to do, if they
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 17:55:16 +
Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>
> We are not managing the internet, we are book keeping really.
>
[...]
If you are correct (and imho you are)
the whole point of book keeping is to have accurate data and records
so, pick your poison. All POV leads to exa
Hi there:
I think the whole notion about we are managing the internet though the policy
are not correct.
We are not managing the internet, we are book keeping really.
Denis, your argument standing on a group that if we do not manage the internet,
the gov will step in and do it for us, but th
Ruediger,
(And everyone else!)
First off, thank you for stimulating lots of useful discussion on 2016-01!
I apologise for my delay in responding to this.
On 28/02/2016 18:38, Ruediger Volk wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I object to passing the policy as proposed.
There is no serious need for the po
Hi there:
I think the whole notion about we are managing the internet though the
policy are not correct.
We are not managing the internet, we are book keeping really.
Denis, your argument standing on a group that if we do not manage the
internet, the gov will step in and do it for us, but that i
+1
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://ceo.hosting/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
---
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside
27;-ideology or 'I am too big
to handle all that abuse'-ideology.
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Namens denis
Verzonden: dinsdag 1 maart 2016 01:17
Aan: Ruediger Volk; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
CC: db...@ripe.net
Onderwerp: Re: [an
Hi Ruediger
I have to say this was a very long winded way to say, as a legacy
resource holder, you don't want to handle abuse complaints.
Which planet have you been living on for the last 20 years (since you
got your legacy resources)? RIPE/RIPE NCC have tried so many times over
these years
* Ruediger Volk:
> No PDP is needed to send friendly invitations to legacy holders to
> populate their data objects with abuse-c information; I'm sure
> asking the RIPE NCC to do this would not create an undue burden or
> serious problem.
How is 2016-01 different from sending such notices? The n
+2
Jerry Upton
Executive Director
M3AAWG.org
-Original Message-
From: Dave Crocker
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian ; Ruediger Volk
Cc: aa-wg-chairs ; db-wg-chairs ;
db-wg ; anti-abuse-wg
Sent: Mon, Feb 29, 2016 9:10 am
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy
On 2/29/2016 3:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 29-Feb-2016, at 12:08 AM, Ruediger Volk wrote:
We have to assume that Internet number resource holders requested
to establish abuse-c
- usually are NOT focussed an abuse handling (different core business:-)
With all due respect - assume
Reedier
I disagree
A standardised abuse-c contact was introduced by RIPE some time ago based on
the anti-abuse WG’s work.
This was communicated via various media and via RIPE staff and at RIPE meetings
etc.,
The “new” policy that is being proposed improves the overall ecosystem for all
user
On 29-Feb-2016, at 12:08 AM, Ruediger Volk wrote:
> We have to assume that Internet number resource holders requested
> to establish abuse-c
> - usually are NOT focussed an abuse handling (different core business:-)
With all due respect - assume that the number resource holder is a corporation
e
Dear colleagues,
I object to passing the policy as proposed.
There is no serious need for the policy,
and at this time and under curent circumstance it would
actually be harmful.
I believe that the supposed good intentions would be better
served by other actions, and the policy focussing on enforc
39 matches
Mail list logo
