[anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Wed Jan 15 10:33:55 CET 2020
Hi Sergio, All, It seems you are proposing a new reputation system, to be managed by the RIPE NCC. If this is the case, you can always try to draft a new policy proposal :-) Cheers, Carlos On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, Sérgio Rocha wrote: > Hi, > > Maybe we can change the approach. > If RIPE website had a platform to post abuse report, that send the email for > the abuse contact, it will be possible to evaluate the responsiveness of the > abuse contact. > > This way anyone that report an abuse could assess not only the response but > also the effectiveness of the actions taken by the network owner. After some > time with this evaluations we would easy to realize who manages the reports > and even who does not respond at all. > > Sérgio > > -----Original Message----- > From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of > Gert Doering > Sent: 15 de janeiro de 2020 08:06 > To: Carlos Friaças <cfriacas at fccn.pt> > Cc: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>; anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation > of "abuse-mailbox") > > Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 07:23:38AM +0000, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg > wrote: >> I obviously don't speak for the incident handling community, but i >> think this (making it optional) would be a serious step back. The >> current situation is already very bad when in some cases we know from >> the start that we are sending (automated) messages/notices to blackholes. > > So why is it preferrable to send mails which are not acted on, as opposed to > "not send mail because you know beforehand that the other network is not > interested"? > > I can see that it is frustrating - but I still cannot support a policy > change which will not help dealing with irresponsible networks in any way, > but at the same time increases costs and workload for those that do the > right thing alrady. > > >> To an extreme, there should always be a known contact responsible for >> any network infrastructure. If this is not the case, what's the >> purpose of a registry then? > > "a known contact" and "an *abuse-handling* contact" is not the same thing. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael > Emmer > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]