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

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2017-02 Validates Database Attributes
by phishing＠storey.xxx 09 Sep '17

09 Sep '17

1 0

oppose 2017-02 "Regular abuse-c Validation"
by Peter Hessler 08 Sep '17

08 Sep '17

STRONG OPPOSITION! As an operator who has to read abuse-c emails, this is a waste of my time. I have real things to do, instead of bothering with this kind of crap. Responding to RIPE ping mails does not mean an abuse-c will respond to emails from non-RIPE entities, nor that a mailbox will keep working in-between pings. This is simply busy work, and has no value. Additionally, the threat that RIPE will deregister for failure to respond is insulting, vulgar, and obscene. -- Katz' Law: Man and nations will act rationally when all other possibilities have been exhausted.

4 3

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
by phishing＠storey.xxx 08 Sep '17

08 Sep '17

1 0

FW: RIPE Policy Proposal 2017-02 Validates Database Attributes
by Erik Bais 08 Sep '17

08 Sep '17

Sorry for cross posting. This should have go to the correct WG for the policy. Erik On 08/09/2017, 09:22, "Erik Bais" <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com> wrote: Hi, Having correct and up to date contact information is already a part of the ARC Process for the RIPE NCC. Each and every LIR will get a regular out-reach call / email from the RIPE NCC to go over their contact details, specific questions about their resources, usage and other stuff. Not having a valid or up to date or working abuse mailbox as an option to be able to de-register resources is something I would not recommend. Any kind of de-registration of resources should not be dictated by only a missing or invalid abuse-c … This means that if by some reason .. a LIR can’t be reached by mail, it might cause their resources to be removed … So I would strongly object to this policy or kind of thinking. You also need to keep in mind that there are a lot of resource holders that have no contract (Legacy holders) with the RIPE NCC.. so RIPE wouldn’t even be able to enforce this. Also, the Legacy space is not under policy .. so the biggest group of ‘problematic’ resources won’t be fixed by this .. Regards, Erik Bais On 07/09/2017, 14:05, "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> wrote: Dear colleagues, We just published RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-02, "Regular abuse-c Validation", to the Anti-Abuse Working Group mailing list. The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to regularly validate "abuse-c:" information, and to follow up in cases where contact information is found to be invalid. As this proposal relates to contact information put into the RIPE Database, we would like to notify the Database Working Group specifically. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> before 6 October 2017. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

upcoming policy proposal for Anti-Abuse WG
by Marco Schmidt 01 Sep '17

01 Sep '17

Hello Brian and Tobias, How are you? You got already your ticket to Dubai? I just want to inform you that likely a policy proposal will find a way to your working group. Gregory from Europol just contacted me, as he want to add a validation requirement to the policy "Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database". His proposal looked pretty advanced to me. I gave him some feedback and explained how to start the formal PDP - by contacting you :) I told Greg to put me in cc when he'll send you the proposal. In case he forgets this, can you please add me in your potential reply so I can start the preparation for the publishing? Regards, Marco

3 3

Something to think about when considering abuse
by ox 01 Sep '17

01 Sep '17

Hi, Not sure if any of you saw this, Re: EU Commissioner and how it is probably good idea to not criticize Google if you have absolutely any dealings with it. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-google-new-amer… Some of us may have already learned this the hard way. I think abuse from and by huge multinationals requires 'special' rules/approach/etc - as fallout and silent discrimination or "black balling" is a reality. As electronic intelligence takes over many functions, this type of abuse can actually be invisible and very pervasive in its silent erosive destruction. Maybe not as much from Google right now, (as imho Google's evil is still evolving) but some of the others are more active. Although, at Google, evil has entered the mono culture and reasoning with someone that "is in charge" is not that easy/possible as they are the final word. Andre

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] *** Re: Abuse Police
by phishing＠storey.xxx 25 Aug '17

25 Aug '17

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Police
by phishing＠storey.xxx 24 Aug '17

24 Aug '17

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Police
by phishing＠storey.xxx 24 Aug '17

24 Aug '17

4 3

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Police
by phishing＠storey.xxx 24 Aug '17

24 Aug '17

1 0