<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <tt>Hi Piotr </tt> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/05/2015 22:24, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:20150507202430.GD29595@hydra.ck.polsl.pl" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 07:15:41PM +0200, denis wrote: Dear Denis and DB-WG Members </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Tools provided by the RIPE NCC to find the abuse contact for a resource (RIPEstat, Abuse Finder) only search for "abuse-c:" data. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Just to clarify - I'm affraid that this looks like not being correct. First of all, this topic was discussed at RIPE69 and it was declared by RIPE NCC Staff Member that RIPEstat is still using more sophisticated way to look for abuse contact. Moreover, at the RIPEstat Abuse Contact Finder webpage (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://stat.ripe.net/specials/abuse">https://stat.ripe.net/specials/abuse</a>) there is still present link to RIPE Labs article describing how this tool works (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://labs.ripe.net/Members/cteusche/finding-anti-abuse-contact-information-with-ripestat">https://labs.ripe.net/Members/cteusche/finding-anti-abuse-contact-information-with-ripestat</a>). </pre> </blockquote> <tt> You are right, RIPEstat still uses an algorithm looking for email addresses that may not be correct, whereas the database Abuse Finder tool only uses the official abuse contact mechanism. I would disagree that this is 'more sophisticated'. It is a crude attempt to rate historical contact information that simply does not fit into a sliding scale of reliability. This algorithm has been criticised by members in the past who have received abuse reports to wrong email addresses or relating to resources they are not responsible for, simply because a complex web of references has changed over time. The problem is when someone uses a tool that has been provided to return an abuse contact and it gives you an email address, people will use that address. It does not matter how many stars it has, they will use it. Given a choice between a 1 star address or nothing...it is not a choice to the user.</tt> <blockquote cite="mid:20150507202430.GD29595@hydra.ck.polsl.pl" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> All above are of course just kind of hints. However, one can check this in practice, looking for Abuse Contact for 155.202.0.0/16 (being just an example here). Both whois client and Abuse Finder says that there is no abuse contact registered for 155.202.0.0/16, whereas RIPEstat reports <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:abuse@produban.com">abuse@produban.com</a> with 4/5 quality rating as an Abuse Contact. This looks like those tools are based on different alghoritms and RIPEstat doesn't _only_ search for "abuse-c" data.</pre> </blockquote> <tt>But now you have a dilemma. This example you referred to is a top level legacy object. They are not subject to the policy and do not have to set up "abuse-c:". In this example there is no referenced ORGANISATION object, no "abuse-c:", just a historical "abuse-mailbox:" in a referenced ROLE object. So it does not follow the accepted "abuse-c:" mechanism. As long as they are allowed to continue to do this they may never change anything and never set up an "abuse-c:" correctly. If you decide not to do a cleanup because legacy space is not set up with "abuse-c:" and RIPEstat still tries to track vague references, then legacy space holders will not change anything and you will never be able to do a cleanup. It is a vicious circle. That means one of the main aims of the "abuse-c:" has failed - to have one single place to record abuse contact details and one single way of finding and reporting it. Apart from the few missing "abuse-c:" that Tim referred to, it is ONLY legacy space that does not have "abuse-c:" now. </tt> <blockquote cite="mid:20150507202430.GD29595@hydra.ck.polsl.pl" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">A cleanup was proposed in the impact analysis for ripe-563 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-06">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-06</a> " In order to clean up existing data, the RIPE NCC will notify the users and convert "abuse-mailbox:" attributes into "remarks:" in any object other than role objects." </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">As it is now a few years since this was discussed and agreed I think it wise to propose the cleanup again and reaffirm this is the way to go. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I therefore propose the RIPE NCC converts all "abuse-mailbox:" attributes into "remarks:" attributes in PERSON, MNTNER, ORGANISATION and IRT objects. Then deprecates this attribute from these object types. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Although I like this idea, I would prefer that RIPE NCC first address the problem of missing abuse-c attributes.</pre> </blockquote> <tt>For the missing "abuse-c:" in RIPE allocated/assigned address space, this should be a simple process to fix. Notify the holders to remind them of their responsibilities, allow them a short period to set it up, then enforce it where necessary. This should not be a blocker on a cleanup. </tt> <blockquote cite="mid:20150507202430.GD29595@hydra.ck.polsl.pl" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I further propose that any "abuse-mailbox:" attribute in a ROLE object, where the ROLE object is not referenced by any "abuse-c:" attribute, and has not been referenced for at least 90 days, is also converted into "remarks:". This will help to clean up historical "abuse-mailbox:" attributes that existed in ROLE objects before "abuse-c:" was introduced. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Is this going to be one-time action or periodic, scheduled procedure? </pre> </blockquote> It could be a one off to delete the historical data, or it could be built into the automated cleanup process to clean out redundant abuse contacts that are not referenced anywhere. <tt>I suggest you go ahead with the cleanup despite all the above. The information currently in objects is not lost, but changed into "remarks: abuse-mailbox:". So if RIPEstat still wants to search for and report this information it is still there. But it makes a clear statement that the database only supports one method of recording abuse contact details. cheers Denis Walker Independent Netizen </tt> <blockquote cite="mid:20150507202430.GD29595@hydra.ck.polsl.pl" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> Best regards, Piotr </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>