[anti-abuse-wg] Correct info in RIPE-database
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Correct info in RIPE-database
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Recent Discussion & RIPE NCC Issues
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Sun Aug 14 03:43:44 CEST 2011
This doesn't suggest "repairing" misreports, it suggests ignoring them as not statistically significant enough to affect a particular account's reputation. So, your automated FBL processing doesn't freeze the account, while the guy with a virus or a compromise gets his account detected and frozen by that very same script. "Handling" or "repairing" misreports any further is just not needed when you look at it that way. --srs On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely at tana.it> wrote: > > > This comparison apparently suggests that misreports ought to be handled and > repaired, just like viruses or compromised passwords, however statistically > negligible they might be. (It could even possible to devise methods to > handle misreports so as to minimize the amount of time that the relevant > abuse team has to spend on manual investigation.) > > Is that what you meant? -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Correct info in RIPE-database
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Recent Discussion & RIPE NCC Issues
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]