On 25/09/2017 14:26, herve.clement@orange.com wrote:
With regard to your first scenario, the auto-answer you mention can be considered as a valid reply, and the "support service" would help to proceed with the abuse report.
Hervé, Thank you for your reply. If an autoresponder directing the enquirer to go read a FAQ, and possibly submit a web ticket, is deemed compliant with this policy it seems unlikely to do much harm, albeit equally unlikely to do anything terribly useful. I still think Gregory's/Europol's needs would be better addressed by asking the NCC to provide a simple visualisation tool for the BGP routing table that enabled investigators to easily discover for a given network that was targetted for investigation which other network was providing the transit. I strongly suspect that for most of the suspect networks Europol has difficulty pinning down there is a very small number (maybe even only one) much larger, more reputable, and more easily found located network operator who would also be much more willing to be cooperative - and the only thing standing in the way of Europol making such an approach is difficulty in inspecting routing and visualising these relationships. That may not provide a perfect solutions in all cases, but neither will asking the NCC to validate data submitted by a small number of organisations that wish to conceal/lie about their data, hiding in amongst a large number of organisations that fail to maintain their data for less nefarious reasons. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA