- anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
by Frank Gadegast 29 Jul '12

29 Jul '12

Lu Heng wrote: >> region, where its legal to abuse computers and services) >> > > Every country has different legal definition about spam, or "abuse", Again, "every country" does not count. Its illegal in my country, and they are harming me personal as well as my business, so I can call them criminals. > spam and abuse are very broad term, without court judgement of the Thats right, but as for the RIPE region, it will only count, whats law in the RIPE region and most countries have very similar laws here, specially those in the EU. > activity, I will be very careful calling anybody criminal--as I don't > have the rights to identify them(I am not sure which country you came > from, ( that why I usally do not hide and add a sig) > at least the countries I ever heard of in my life, the rights of > identify someone as criminal are only hold by judges. not even police > has rights to call someone criminal--they can call "suspect"). So I can call those criminals, that are already in jail ? Well, happening every day in Germany. > Ripe region cross wide range of culture and countries, I don't believe > anybody in any specific region has rights to define what is "abuse" > for another very different country. and especially regarding the legal > terms like "criminal" is very serious term that I don't believe > anybody has rights to identify the entire ripe region's population, > not even EU, as Ripe covers wider area than EU does. Sad enough, what a stupid idea to set up an organization without common law ... > But again, Ripe is only a registration service, No RIPE is a community. RIPE NCC is offering the services. > Ripe NCC has no rights > either the entire community has no rights to identify any body in a > legal term, if a spammer need an IP range for a technical term, Ripe > NCC has to give to them--It is not Ripe NCC's position to judge Never said and sure not. The NCC can give the resources to any MEMBER ! They are not giving them to the community ! Only to members. So: why should the community decide about the format of the database ? > anybody's action if legal, seems to me so many times people forget > that Ripe NCC is only a registration service, they are not government > of the internet, either they need a police force to regulate the > internet. Well, the police IS regulating the internet, according to the laws of several countries and every day criminals are being send to jail for some computer crime. Worldwide. And if they are allowed to use an internet terminal in their cell, they could even post here, that a mandatory field is stupid, without any good reson against it. And the so-called "community" then does not have any consensus ... Oh, Im fantazising know ... Kind regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ======================================================================

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
by Frank Gadegast 28 Jul '12

28 Jul '12

H.Lu wrote: > Hi > Hi, >> So, my personal summary is: >> --- >> Anybody, who is against a mandatory abuse field, >> is a professional spammer, abuser, maintains >> a bot net or sells open proxies or other services >> used for abusing others. >> They are criminals to my opinion. >> > > I think this is a bit too absolute... Not at all. There is only four types: 1 people that do like to do something against abuse originating from there resources 2 people that do like to do something against abuse reaching there networks 3 people that do not like to do anything against abuse originating from there networks Some of those interest could be combinated. (and all those will have no problem with the mandatory abuse field, they will either love it or they can ignore it) and: 4 people that dont want that others have it easier to work against spam THEY cause > > But even they are, identify them as criminal might not be true as in some country spam might not even consider as offense. Well, its illegal in my country, so I can call them criminals. (please do me a favor and name one country in the RIPE region, where its legal to abuse computers and services) The big question is: - should we stop any progress in spam reporting and the cleanup of the database because of people, that are criminals in most member countries ? - and that are not even located in the RIPE region ? - and that are no members ? The following always puzzled me anyway: how can people influence the regulations without being members or without bing located in the RIPE region ? The members pay the service and to my opinion, paying members should be the only ones, we should listen too. Its a weird situation, that anybody from whatever country with whatever background or regulations can influence everything. Lets take ICANN as an example: do you really think that I will have the chance to influence a vote at the ICANN members board without being a member ? Well, they might listen, what others have to say, but finally it will be a vote. Lets have a vote asking all RIPE members abuse this proposal instead of listening to every criminal from the world ... Kind regards, Frank >> But thats only my impression ... >> --- >> >> >> Kind regards, Frank >> -- >> PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de >> Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de >> Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 >> 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 >> ====================================================================== >> > > -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ======================================================================

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2011-06 Review Period extended until 13 August2013 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
by Jamie Stallwood 27 Jul '12

27 Jul '12

Seems reasonable to me, I have no objections. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood Jamie Stallwood Security Specialist Imerja Limited Tel: 0844 225 2888 Mob: 07795 840385 Jamie.Stallwood(a)imerja.com NIC Handle: uk.imerja.JS7259-RIPE -----Original Message----- From: policy-announce-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: 17 July 2012 14:26 To: policy-announce(a)ripe.net Cc: aa-wg-chairs(a)ripe.net; tk(a)abusix.com; anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [policy-announce] 2011-06 Review Period extended until 13 August2013 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database) Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2011-06 has been extended until 13 August 2012. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt on behalf of Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated.

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
by Reza Farzan 26 Jul '12

26 Jul '12

Hi Tobias, Thank you for you comments. Storing abuse contact details in one location makes perfect sense and satisfies many who are concerned about Abuse/Spam activities. Further simplifying this often confusing aspect of Abuse reporting channel in Whois directory should be one of the goals for RIPE's Anti-Abuse WG. Without any reservations, I support this practical proposal. Thank you, Reza Farzan +++++++++ -----Original Message----- >From: Tobias Knecht <tk(a)abusix.com> >Sent: Jul 26, 2012 10:57 AM >To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net >Cc: Denis Walker <denis(a)ripe.net>, rezaf(a)mindspring.com >Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports > >Hi everybody, > >> If the policy proposal 2011-06 is approved by the community we can work >> towards storing abuse contact details in one location, referenced in one >> way and easily readable by humans and scripts. Of course it won't solve >> all problems, as some people were hoping for. But it is the first step >> of what can be a journey towards a more complete solution. > >That is absolutely true, there are some other important things that'll >need coverage step by step. > >Never the less this proposal is imho an important step into the right >direction, so please let Brian and me know if you are on the same page >or have any concerns. In both cases please let us know if you support >the proposal or if you have concerns. > >Thanks, > >Tobias >

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
by Reza Farzan 25 Jul '12

25 Jul '12

To complement what Alessandro said, it is good that RFC 6650 splits abuse complaints between "solicited" and "unsolicited" ones, even though it may confuse common users. The "solicited" should be reserved for Spam Cop, and other administrators who are trying to report Abuse/Spam activities to a network. The "unsolicited" channel could be like a web form that encourages users to report Abuse/Spam activities to a network like the one that GoDaddy has: https://supportcenter.godaddy.com/Abuse/SpamReport.aspx?ci=22420. This way, the "solicited" channel (abuse(a)domain-name.com) would remain free of unsolicited inquiries, and network administrators could mange it more efficiently and process legitimate reports promptly. Thank you, Reza Farzan =========== -----Original Message----- >From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely(a)tana.it> >Sent: Jul 24, 2012 2:22 PM >To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net >Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports > >On Tue 24/Jul/2012 17:34:01 +0200 Luis Muñoz wrote: >> I believe that having an optional "auto-abuse-mailbox" object (that >> is mandatory to use when present) dealing only with automated >> reports, could help anti-abuse operators (both in the report >> sending and receiving sides). > >Let me add one consideration to what Tobias wrote: > >RFC 6650 splits abuse complaints between "solicited" and "unsolicited" >ones. Also known as feedback loops, the former can be automated >according to the underlying agreement. One can use a different >reporting addresses for each subscription. > >Unsolicited complaints deserve a bit of thought: Who is sending them? > Why? When such questions are cleared, the stream of reports from >that operator can be directed to the appropriate bin, possibly by >negotiating a different address with the report generator. In fact, >that is the same as establishing a feedback loop, and it cannot be >automated fully for the same reasons why subscriptions to the early >kind of feedback loops cannot. > >See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6650#section-5.5

2 1

Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration Data
by Axel Pawlik 25 Jul '12

25 Jul '12

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC procedural document, "Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration Data", has been published. The document is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/due-diligence The RIPE NCC has a mandate from the RIPE community to keep an up-to-date and correct Internet number resource registry. In order to comply with this mandate, the RIPE NCC performs due diligence on organisations the RIPE NCC registers Internet number resource for. This document outlines the minimum information and documentation the RIPE NCC requires to make sure that the registration data is valid and up-to-date. Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
by Jørgen Hovland 25 Jul '12

25 Jul '12

2 1

2011-06 Review Period extended until *14 August* 2013 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
by Marco Schmidt 18 Jul '12

18 Jul '12

Dear colleagues, Yesterday we announced that the extended Review Period for this policy proposal would end on 13 August 2012. This date was incorrect. The correct end date for the extended Review Period for policy proposal 2011-06 is *14 August* 2012. We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net>. We apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. Regards, Marco Schmidt on behalf of Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2011-06 Review Period extended until 13 August 2013 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
by Marco Schmidt 17 Jul '12

17 Jul '12

Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2011-06 has been extended until 13 August 2012. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt on behalf of Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Discussion on 2011-06
by Brian Nisbet 26 Jun '12

26 Jun '12

Colleagues, Two weeks ago Emilio published the revised version of 2011-06 and the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis. I was hoping that this would answer some of the questions that were raised in the discussion phase and prompt further discussion of the proposal, but this hasn't happened. Could I ask the WG to take a look at the links: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06/draft and see if there are remaining questions or things you would like to discuss so we can gauge reaction to 2011-06? Thanks, Brian.

9 14