Re: [anti-abuse-wg] update on netsecdb project
Frank, I have assumed, hopefully correctly, that you meant this mail to go to the list again, so I have copied my reply there. "Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast" wrote the following on 06/04/2010 16:03:
Hello Brian,
How can not anybody have an idea, how to solve the problem ?
Many people have many ideas, not all of them work. There remains no silver bullet. And any recommendation made still needs to be adopted.
I just discribed one arround launch time. RIPE should urged all members to stop spam originating from their networks.
You did not describe a silver bullet. The RIPE community has urged their members to stop spam and abuse for years, RIPE-409 says it quite plainly, this has been the repeated advice. There are potential ways of enforcing this, but please do not claim that what has been discussed so far today will suddenly stop network abuse.
Usally there are to many ideas resulting in at least something to do.
And many things have been discussed, and often solutions suggested. It
Not on the list.
And the minutes of each meeting are posted to the list. So far no discussion has come out of them.
is up to people to implement those suggestions or to make proposals to the RIPE community and perhaps ask the NCC to undertake a task. In addition, as we discussed in Lisbon and as we will be discussing again in Prague, the two chairs of the WG have been working with the NCC and international law enforcement to look at ways of furthering cooperation
goverments ? this will make all worse and slower ...
The aim is to get governments and LEAs onside, to examine policies and procedures at RIR level and to avoid the making of necessary legislation and to keep the bottom up consensus approach. However there is no way that governments will not be involved, the idea is to take their input and show them we, as a community, are acting.
and putting procedures in place that can more directly tackle network abuse. However this is, as you must appreciate, not a simple or fast task.
we hope, in May, to chair another productive meeting.
What will be discussed there ? Agenda ?
We're trying to finalise the agenda at the moment, but the work that is taking place with the NCC, the RIPE community and the LEAs will be
Well, please post it to the list, so that it can be discussed before its finalized.
I will post an agenda, but I'm not sure what discussion there is likely to be as my two calls for agenda items have, so far, met with one single response. Equally, the agenda of any WG is reasonably mutable and on occasion has been finalised an hour or so before the meeting, so there will be plenty of time for discussion.
playing a major part. I hope to have a first draft by the end of this week. Obviously if any proposals are brought to the WG before the meeting on Thursday 6th, discussion time for them will be allocated on the agenda.
All this should happen all on the list, not everybody can attend meetings.
Apologies, I should have been clearer. As has been stated elsewhere and, I believe, on this list, while policy proposals will, undoubtedly, be discussed at meetings, the primary place to discuss policy is the WG mailing list and there is no intention or plan to purely discuss things at meetings. Brian.
On 6 Apr 2010, at 16:45, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Frank,
I have assumed, hopefully correctly, that you meant this mail to go to the list again, so I have copied my reply there.
"Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast" wrote the following on 06/04/2010 16:03:
Hello Brian,
How can not anybody have an idea, how to solve the problem ?
Many people have many ideas, not all of them work. There remains no silver bullet. And any recommendation made still needs to be adopted.
I just discribed one arround launch time. RIPE should urged all members to stop spam originating from their networks.
You did not describe a silver bullet. The RIPE community has urged their members to stop spam and abuse for years, RIPE-409 says it quite plainly, this has been the repeated advice. There are potential ways of enforcing this, but please do not claim that what has been discussed so far today will suddenly stop network abuse.
You can suggest things until the cows come home, but you cannot expect RIPE or anyone else to come up with a "magical" solution that is going to make everyone happy The other thing is that a lot of anti-spam / anti-abuse people don't realise is that they are their own worse enemies More often than not they do not take into account the business realities If an ISP / hosting provider were to act as quickly as some people would like them to act plenty of innocent bystanders would be harmed and the ISP / hosting provider would probably be sued.
Usally there are to many ideas resulting in at least something to do.
And many things have been discussed, and often solutions suggested. It
Not on the list.
And the minutes of each meeting are posted to the list. So far no discussion has come out of them.
is up to people to implement those suggestions or to make proposals to the RIPE community and perhaps ask the NCC to undertake a task. In addition, as we discussed in Lisbon and as we will be discussing again in Prague, the two chairs of the WG have been working with the NCC and international law enforcement to look at ways of furthering cooperation
goverments ? this will make all worse and slower ...
The aim is to get governments and LEAs onside, to examine policies and procedures at RIR level and to avoid the making of necessary legislation and to keep the bottom up consensus approach. However there is no way that governments will not be involved, the idea is to take their input and show them we, as a community, are acting.
Governments are going to get involved at some level regardless of whether you like it or not. Take a look at what has been going on with the GAC or law enforcement's latest statements regarding domains ..
and putting procedures in place that can more directly tackle network abuse. However this is, as you must appreciate, not a simple or fast task.
we hope, in May, to chair another productive meeting.
What will be discussed there ? Agenda ?
We're trying to finalise the agenda at the moment, but the work that is taking place with the NCC, the RIPE community and the LEAs will be
Well, please post it to the list, so that it can be discussed before its finalized.
I will post an agenda, but I'm not sure what discussion there is likely to be as my two calls for agenda items have, so far, met with one single response. Equally, the agenda of any WG is reasonably mutable and on occasion has been finalised an hour or so before the meeting, so there will be plenty of time for discussion.
playing a major part. I hope to have a first draft by the end of this week. Obviously if any proposals are brought to the WG before the meeting on Thursday 6th, discussion time for them will be allocated on the agenda.
All this should happen all on the list, not everybody can attend meetings.
Apologies, I should have been clearer. As has been stated elsewhere and, I believe, on this list, while policy proposals will, undoubtedly, be discussed at meetings, the primary place to discuss policy is the WG mailing list and there is no intention or plan to purely discuss things at meetings.
Brian.
Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
Hi,
You did not describe a silver bullet. The RIPE community has urged their members to stop spam and abuse for years, RIPE-409 says it quite plainly, this has been the repeated advice. There are potential ways of enforcing this, but please do not claim that what has been discussed so far today will suddenly stop network abuse.
You can suggest things until the cows come home, but you cannot expect RIPE or anyone else to come up with a "magical" solution that is going to make everyone happy
Sorry that blabla. Does anybody have a better idea how to urge members to stop using their allocations for spamming ? Any real technical comments for my idea ? Any improvement we could make to such a system and recommendation ? I would love to work with all of you to develop a system we could all agree to and that works and could be recommended as proposal for the community.
The other thing is that a lot of anti-spam / anti-abuse people don't realise is that they are their own worse enemies More often than not they do not take into account the business realities
If an ISP / hosting provider were to act as quickly as some people would like them to act plenty of innocent bystanders would be harmed and the ISP / hosting provider would probably be sued.
Time is no problem, a change to RIPEs regulation can be timed for 1 or 2 years until it will really end up in any punishment against spam provider. This whole process can be slow. Goverment regulations also have a time schedule. Its stupid to stop thinking or working because the final goal is still far away ... 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 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 04:45:18PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
How can not anybody have an idea, how to solve the problem ?
Many people have many ideas, not all of them work. There remains no silver bullet. And any recommendation made still needs to be adopted.
I just discribed one arround launch time. RIPE should urged all members to stop spam originating from their networks.
Sure, once we agree on a definition for spam, that COULD work fine. Cheers, j. -- j.hofmüller http://users.mur.at/thesix/
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 06:52:43PM +0200, Jogi Hofm?ller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 04:45:18PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
How can not anybody have an idea, how to solve the problem ?
Many people have many ideas, not all of them work. There remains no silver bullet. And any recommendation made still needs to be adopted.
I just discribed one arround launch time. RIPE should urged all members to stop spam originating from their networks.
Sure, once we agree on a definition for spam, that COULD work fine.
Is there a disagreement on this point ? I thought it was "unsolicited+bulk" (as in http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html ) and that this definition was quite universally accepted in the industry. furio
Reference to the WG policy/working document ripe-409 which by all means is a very comprehensive document, would have yield a good result if the industry took the measures identified in the said document. I would like to raise few points on the same. - As many said that most of the Spam is generated from the dynamic IP clients and usually from spam bots, than my point is why those dynamic IP clients have the privilege to use port 25 at the first hand? - What measures do the service provider take after receiving an abuse report from an authority? I have my self seen totally no response from such email generated from our anti-spam bots. - Is "Two Strike Policy" implemented in atleast 50% of the service providers industry within the region? adding abuse-c contact in the RIR database doesn't allow the RIR to give any right to enhance the ability to curb spam. As long as the service industry is on board there is nothing RIR can do to avoid it. In my opinion the agenda item should be based on the above three points. My 2c Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:26 PM, furio ercolessi <furio+as@spin.it<furio%2Bas@spin.it>
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 06:52:43PM +0200, Jogi Hofm?ller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 04:45:18PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
How can not anybody have an idea, how to solve the problem ?
Many people have many ideas, not all of them work. There remains no silver bullet. And any recommendation made still needs to be adopted.
I just discribed one arround launch time. RIPE should urged all members to stop spam originating from their networks.
Sure, once we agree on a definition for spam, that COULD work fine.
Is there a disagreement on this point ? I thought it was "unsolicited+bulk" (as in http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html ) and that this definition was quite universally accepted in the industry.
furio
Hi, On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 07:26:20PM +0200, furio ercolessi wrote:
Sure, once we agree on a definition for spam, that COULD work fine.
Is there a disagreement on this point ? I thought it was "unsolicited+bulk" (as in http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html ) and that this definition was quite universally accepted in the industry.
JFTR, I don't think it has to be "bulk" to be SPAM. OTOH, I see the "C" in "UCE" as relevant... if someone sends a commercial sales mail to my private e-mail, and it's just a single and directly targeted e-mail, it's *still* SPAM. So, you see, there is no universal definition. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 150584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
--On 6 April 2010 21:57:00 +0200 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 07:26:20PM +0200, furio ercolessi wrote:
Sure, once we agree on a definition for spam, that COULD work fine.
Is there a disagreement on this point ? I thought it was "unsolicited+bulk" (as in http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html ) and that this definition was quite universally accepted in the industry.
JFTR, I don't think it has to be "bulk" to be SPAM. OTOH, I see the "C" in "UCE" as relevant... if someone sends a commercial sales mail to my private e-mail, and it's just a single and directly targeted e-mail, it's *still* SPAM.
In the UK, the term "marketing" is used in place of commercial. It's wider than commercial. You could be marketing a political party, charity, or church.
So, you see, there is no universal definition.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
-- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ /\ Document Freedom Day - Liberate your documents _\/` http://documentfreedom.org/ - March 31st 2010
--On 6 April 2010 19:26:20 +0200 furio ercolessi <furio+as@spin.it> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 06:52:43PM +0200, Jogi Hofm?ller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 04:45:18PM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
How can not anybody have an idea, how to solve the problem ?
Many people have many ideas, not all of them work. There remains no silver bullet. And any recommendation made still needs to be adopted.
I just discribed one arround launch time. RIPE should urged all members to stop spam originating from their networks.
Sure, once we agree on a definition for spam, that COULD work fine.
Is there a disagreement on this point ? I thought it was "unsolicited+bulk" (as in http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html ) and that this definition was quite universally accepted in the industry.
Not here. The problem with "bulk" is that this can only be determined with certainty by the sender. Since "unsolicited" can only be determined with certainty by the recipient, "unsolicted bulk" can only be determined with co-operation between sender and recipient. The recipient doesn't necessarily care about the "bulk" part. The sender, doesn't necessarily care about co-operating. It's also quite difficult to define "bulk" in a way that's robust technically and legally. Especially when snow-shoe spammers are using templated spam that never looks the same twice. In UK law, the definition is "unsolicited and marketing". In my view, that's a much better definition, provided "marketing" is drawn fairly widely - which it is. Both can be determined by the recipient. The problem in the UK is enforcement.
furio
-- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ /\ Document Freedom Day - Liberate your documents _\/` http://documentfreedom.org/ - March 31st 2010
Hi,
I just discribed one arround launch time. RIPE should urged all members to stop spam originating from their networ= ks.
Sure, once we agree on a definition for spam, that COULD work fine.
If we cannot define something, then we should do something, where we dont need this definition. What about if we forget about the definition of spam and let the Internet users do it for us ? If the RIPE will finally get the spam reports and complaints and forward them to the provider, nobody has to define what spams or complaints are, because RIPE will only count the complaints and these complaints could be anything ... So lets start talking about complaints :o) Good idea ? 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 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
Cheers, j. --=20 j.hofm=C3=BCller http://users.mur.at/thesix/
--2JFBq9zoW8cOFH7v Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAku7ZtsACgkQAPrjdblyzsG3WQCfZhK0BeuMiOGAUZusXUo0VcuN degAniQ/tyVmn5Dq8sycHsmOX+GG+Ug5 =DFYT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--2JFBq9zoW8cOFH7v--
Frank,
Hi again,
I just discribed one arround launch time. RIPE should urged all members to stop spam originating from their networks.
You did not describe a silver bullet. The RIPE community has urged their members to stop spam and abuse for years, RIPE-409 says it quite plainly, this has been the repeated advice. There are potential ways of
Advise is very different to forcing members to do something and to have sanctions, right ? It looks like that "advice" did not change anything. I might be that it helped for long term members, but I guess here that those members finaly understood themself, that they block their own business, if they do nothing. Newer members arent so far, and any "advise" will not changed that for years. A change in the RIPEs regulations WILL change something very quickly ... Thats what we should work for. (still waiting on a discussion of the system I discribed arround lunch time)
enforcing this, but please do not claim that what has been discussed so far today will suddenly stop network abuse.
Well, I see it from my perspective. Developing a own dnsbl basing on the spam our customers receive reduced the problem for us to nearly nothing, but this was hard work and still needs ajustments and further development to keep up with the spammers newest technologies. Adapting this expirience and the expirience from all members for the whole RIPE region and developing regulations for all members cannot be so complicated ... There is just no will from most members, because it means work. Who will vote for a regulation that ends up in work ?
Usally there are to many ideas resulting in at least something to do.
And many things have been discussed, and often solutions suggested. It
Not on the list.
And the minutes of each meeting are posted to the list. So far no discussion has come out of them.
Sure, most interested members will not intend meetings (because they have to fight against the Spam arriving out of the networks from attendees *** sorry *** had to make this joke). It would be much more productive and generate more consensus, if the points would be discussed on the list BEFORE the meeting.
is up to people to implement those suggestions or to make proposals to the RIPE community and perhaps ask the NCC to undertake a task. In addition, as we discussed in Lisbon and as we will be discussing again in Prague, the two chairs of the WG have been working with the NCC and international law enforcement to look at ways of furthering cooperation
goverments ? this will make all worse and slower ...
The aim is to get governments and LEAs onside, to examine policies and
Might be your aim, this was not discussed on the list. Germany talkes now for about 2 years about an introduction of general Internet blocking systems (mostly because of sex crimes), this is absolutely not productive. Germany already has weird regulations for mail control to fight against spam. Goverments have no technical background at all and neither have the so-called experts the pay for advise.
procedures at RIR level and to avoid the making of necessary legislation and to keep the bottom up consensus approach. However there is no way
Forget, how do you think that there will be a world-wide consensus in Goverments ? That does not happen in the EU and will never.
that governments will not be involved, the idea is to take their input and show them we, as a community, are acting.
Weird starting point, goverments have no idea, what the Internet is ...
We're trying to finalise the agenda at the moment, but the work that is taking place with the NCC, the RIPE community and the LEAs will be
Well, please post it to the list, so that it can be discussed before its finalized.
I will post an agenda, but I'm not sure what discussion there is likely to be as my two calls for agenda items have, so far, met with one single response. Equally, the agenda of any WG is reasonably mutable and on
Well, maybe there will be more ideas coming ...
occasion has been finalised an hour or so before the meeting, so there will be plenty of time for discussion.
playing a major part. I hope to have a first draft by the end of this week. Obviously if any proposals are brought to the WG before the meeting on Thursday 6th, discussion time for them will be allocated on the agenda.
All this should happen all on the list, not everybody can attend meetings.
Apologies, I should have been clearer. As has been stated elsewhere and, I believe, on this list, while policy proposals will, undoubtedly, be discussed at meetings, the primary place to discuss policy is the WG mailing list and there is no intention or plan to purely discuss things at meetings.
Then I somehow really missed detailed discussion, I counted about 100 mails during the last year ... 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 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
Brian.
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Frank Gadegast <phade@www.powerweb.de>wrote:
Forget, how do you think that there will be a world-wide consensus in Goverments ? That does not happen in the EU and will never.
What makes you think that this will be somehow different within RIPE? -- Esa Laitinen Tel. +41 76 200 2870 skype/yahoo: reunaesa
"Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast" wrote the following on 06/04/2010 19:40:
I just discribed one arround launch time. RIPE should urged all members to stop spam originating from their networks.
You did not describe a silver bullet. The RIPE community has urged their members to stop spam and abuse for years, RIPE-409 says it quite plainly, this has been the repeated advice. There are potential ways of
Advise is very different to forcing members to do something and to have sanctions, right ?
So, you are suggesting a number of measures that the community should ask the NCC to put in place to punish members who are judged, by someone, to be responsible for network abuse?
(still waiting on a discussion of the system I discribed arround lunch time)
Are you talking about replicating the Tobias' APNIC proposal in the RIPE region and/or publishing lists of non-responders? I, the list and, I have no doubt, the community, are interested in any proposal that might reduce network abuse, but after the mails today and yesterday I think some clarification and something that might be motion towards a proposal might be useful?
enforcing this, but please do not claim that what has been discussed so far today will suddenly stop network abuse.
Well, I see it from my perspective. Developing a own dnsbl basing on the spam our customers receive reduced the problem for us to nearly nothing, but this was hard work and still needs ajustments and further development to keep up with the spammers newest technologies.
Adapting this expirience and the expirience from all members for the whole RIPE region and developing regulations for all members cannot be so complicated ...
It really can.
There is just no will from most members, because it means work. Who will vote for a regulation that ends up in work ?
Many people have in the past, if they believe the work will involve improving the situation for their customers and for their staff.
And the minutes of each meeting are posted to the list. So far no discussion has come out of them.
Sure, most interested members will not intend meetings (because they have to fight against the Spam arriving out of the networks from attendees *** sorry *** had to make this joke).
It would be much more productive and generate more consensus, if the points would be discussed on the list BEFORE the meeting.
As the agenda will, in no small part, feature presentations and discussions, it is difficult to proceed as you're suggesting, however consensus is not something that is reached purely at meetings. The mailing list, where more members can participate is, as I've mentioned, the main location for dicussion. To take, for instance, the IRT object discussion, it was decided in Lisbon to close that item as no discussion had taken place, either at meetings or on the mailing list, for some time, not just because of an action at a meeting.
goverments ? this will make all worse and slower ...
The aim is to get governments and LEAs onside, to examine policies and
Might be your aim, this was not discussed on the list.
No, this is a oft-stated aim of the NCC and a fair chunk of the community. In addition, our interactions with governments and the LEAs were clearly referenced and minuted at the Lisbon meeting. There will be further information presented in Prague (and remember, these meetings can be followed online) and the points raised there will be put forward for further discussion on the mailing list. We will post what agenda we can, but there's very little to discuss on the list before a meeting, unless some concrete proposals are made.
procedures at RIR level and to avoid the making of necessary legislation and to keep the bottom up consensus approach. However there is no way
Forget, how do you think that there will be a world-wide consensus in Goverments ? That does not happen in the EU and will never.
I do not believe there will be consensus amongst governements, that's not what I'm suggesting.
that governments will not be involved, the idea is to take their input and show them we, as a community, are acting.
Weird starting point, goverments have no idea, what the Internet is ...
It's not the starting point, but there is no question that the RIPE community and the NCC need to talk to governments need to show good stewardship of the resources we have and need to avoid *un*-necessary legislation. (Thanks to NOR for pointing out the lacking *un* when I mentioned this previously.)
We're trying to finalise the agenda at the moment, but the work that is taking place with the NCC, the RIPE community and the LEAs will be
Well, please post it to the list, so that it can be discussed before its finalized.
I will post an agenda, but I'm not sure what discussion there is likely to be as my two calls for agenda items have, so far, met with one single response. Equally, the agenda of any WG is reasonably mutable and on
Well, maybe there will be more ideas coming ...
For agenda items?
Apologies, I should have been clearer. As has been stated elsewhere and, I believe, on this list, while policy proposals will, undoubtedly, be discussed at meetings, the primary place to discuss policy is the WG mailing list and there is no intention or plan to purely discuss things at meetings.
Then I somehow really missed detailed discussion, I counted about 100 mails during the last year ...
Well, no, there has not been discussion, equally there has not been any policy proposals. Discussion will take place on list, should there be things to discuss. Brian.
Hi,
"Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast" wrote the following on 06/04/2010 19:40:
I just discribed one arround launch time. RIPE should urged all members to stop spam originating from their networks.
You did not describe a silver bullet. The RIPE community has urged their members to stop spam and abuse for years, RIPE-409 says it quite plainly, this has been the repeated advice. There are potential ways of
Advise is very different to forcing members to do something and to have sanctions, right ?
So, you are suggesting a number of measures that the community should ask the NCC to put in place to punish members who are judged, by someone, to be responsible for network abuse?
Sure.
(still waiting on a discussion of the system I discribed arround lunch time)
Are you talking about replicating the Tobias' APNIC proposal in the RIPE region and/or publishing lists of non-responders? I, the list and, I
No, Im talking about an abuse-adress like ip1.ip2.ip3.ip4@abuse.ripe.net wich forward all incoming abuse reports to the responsible member I discribed.
Well, I see it from my perspective. Developing a own dnsbl basing on the spam our customers receive reduced the problem for us to nearly nothing, but this was hard work and still needs ajustments and further development to keep up with the spammers newest technologies.
Adapting this expirience and the expirience from all members for the whole RIPE region and developing regulations for all members cannot be so complicated ...
It really can.
So were are the constructive ideas and discussion. Everything I here sound like: doesn work, doesn want ...
As the agenda will, in no small part, feature presentations and discussions, it is difficult to proceed as you're suggesting, however consensus is not something that is reached purely at meetings. The mailing list, where more members can participate is, as I've mentioned, the main location for dicussion. To take, for instance, the IRT object
But there is no discussion. And this might be, becuase most discussion currently happens at the meetings. Thats why everybody on the list should now, what will be discussed on the meetings to give feedback BEFORE the meeting ist happening. If people get the feeling, that there ideas and input are welcome, they might even appear at the mettings ...
discussion, it was decided in Lisbon to close that item as no discussion
Nobody talked about the IRT object before the meeting took place and thats very sad, because I guess a lot of people would vote for them.
had taken place, either at meetings or on the mailing list, for some time, not just because of an action at a meeting.
Its the first time I heard about the IRT object, it was maybe a short note somewhere in the meeting protocol, but never discussed on this list. We need to change this, so that discissions are not only made by people that can attend meetings.
goverments ? this will make all worse and slower ...
The aim is to get governments and LEAs onside, to examine policies and
Might be your aim, this was not discussed on the list.
No, this is a oft-stated aim of the NCC and a fair chunk of the community. In addition, our interactions with governments and the LEAs were clearly referenced and minuted at the Lisbon meeting. There will
Again, doing anythign at meetings cuts out the majority of the members, this is like an oligarchy ...
be further information presented in Prague (and remember, these meetings can be followed online) and the points raised there will be put forward for further discussion on the mailing list. We will post what agenda we can, but there's very little to discuss on the list before a meeting, unless some concrete proposals are made.
Thats what the list is for. The people on the list should give the input for the meetings. There should be discussions before an agenda will be settled.
Well, maybe there will be more ideas coming ...
For agenda items?
Sure, did anybody ever asked for them ? Im maybe old and forget a lot, but quickly flicked through the last mails from the list and did not find anything like "call for agenda items".
Well, no, there has not been discussion, equally there has not been any policy proposals. Discussion will take place on list, should there be things to discuss.
There is a lot to discuss. - first I would call for agenda items - then I would call for anti-spam-system hosted by RIPE Then we should talk in details about all this to finally find the best ideas and solution and these should be talked about at the meetings. I bet that lots of people will attend meetings, when their ideas will find there way to meetings ... And last I would call everybody to use usefull subjects on this list, when the themes change, instead of just replying. 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 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
Brian.
Frank, I fear we are rapidly entering into, or have already entered into, unproductive territory, but anyway... "Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast" wrote the following on 07/04/2010 19:54:
(still waiting on a discussion of the system I discribed arround lunch time)
Are you talking about replicating the Tobias' APNIC proposal in the RIPE region and/or publishing lists of non-responders? I, the list and, I
No, Im talking about an abuse-adress like ip1.ip2.ip3.ip4@abuse.ripe.net wich forward all incoming abuse reports to the responsible member I discribed.
Then by all means write a proposal, please. From a personal point of view, I cannot see the usefulness of creating another abuse address, as it still has to be pointed at a real address and something still needs to be done with it, the latter two are the bigger problem. And if people were mailing an @ripe.net address, it would seem to shift the responsibility for enforcement, and the blame for breach, onto the NCC?
As the agenda will, in no small part, feature presentations and discussions, it is difficult to proceed as you're suggesting, however consensus is not something that is reached purely at meetings. The mailing list, where more members can participate is, as I've mentioned, the main location for dicussion. To take, for instance, the IRT object
But there is no discussion. And this might be, becuase most discussion currently happens at the meetings. Thats why everybody on the list should now, what will be discussed on the meetings to give feedback BEFORE the meeting ist happening. If people get the feeling, that there ideas and input are welcome, they might even appear at the mettings ...
There are certain things that it's possible to give feedback on, other things it's more difficult to give feedback on, especially presentations which will only be finished shortly before the WG meeting. I will, as I promised, be publishing a draft agenda for the meeting before the end of this week and we can see what comes from that.
discussion, it was decided in Lisbon to close that item as no discussion
Nobody talked about the IRT object before the meeting took place and thats very sad, because I guess a lot of people would vote for them.
There was extensive discussion both on the mailing list this group (as anti-spam) and DB (as the proposal was formally raised there), so that's worth checking out. However there was no consensus. And remember, it's not a voting situation.
No, this is a oft-stated aim of the NCC and a fair chunk of the community. In addition, our interactions with governments and the LEAs were clearly referenced and minuted at the Lisbon meeting. There will
Again, doing anythign at meetings cuts out the majority of the members, this is like an oligarchy ...
Anything? By the extension of that logic we'd never have meetings. The reality of human social interaction is that we're still better at doing things when we're face to face with each other for short periods of time. There is no intent to cut people out, remote participation is now much easier, no hard decisions are made (consensus is not declared purely based on a meeting) and minutes are posted.
Well, maybe there will be more ideas coming ...
For agenda items?
Sure, did anybody ever asked for them ? Im maybe old and forget a lot, but quickly flicked through the last mails from the list and did not find anything like "call for agenda items".
Really? I sent two mails, one on the 10th of March, one on the 31st. I've received a couple of offers of talks, they will be happening at the meeting. I also received a suggestion of something to look at, so I did. :) Generally a call for items goes out two months before a meeting, so yes. Please note, these two mails were the latest two on the list before Claus' mail on the 6th.
There is a lot to discuss. - first I would call for agenda items - then I would call for anti-spam-system hosted by RIPE
Then we should talk in details about all this to finally find the best ideas and solution and these should be talked about at the meetings. I bet that lots of people will attend meetings, when their ideas will find there way to meetings ...
Their ideas will find their way to meetings, please stop claiming otherwise without any evidence to support that. Agenda items have always been called for. So far very few concrete ideas have been put forth. The notion you raised of an abuse address requires a lot more fleshing out before it could become a proposal and be properly discussed. A variety of questions spring to mind for me, some of which I've outlined above. However without more detail, there will not be proper discussion. Regards, Brian.
Frank,
Hi,
I fear we are rapidly entering into, or have already entered into, unproductive territory, but anyway...
"Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast" wrote the following on 07/04/2010 19:54:
(still waiting on a discussion of the system I discribed arround lunch time)
Are you talking about replicating the Tobias' APNIC proposal in the RIPE region and/or publishing lists of non-responders? I, the list and, I
No, Im talking about an abuse-adress like ip1.ip2.ip3.ip4@abuse.ripe.net wich forward all incoming abuse reports to the responsible member I discribed.
Then by all means write a proposal, please. From a personal point of
A proposal should be discussed with lots of people to get enough input first. This list would be perfect for this.
view, I cannot see the usefulness of creating another abuse address, as
First, nobody has to look up abuse addresses via whois anymore. Second, the real abuse address of the member can be hidden. Third, delivery of abuse reports can be automated and maybe standarized in the future (there are already formats for abuse reports).
it still has to be pointed at a real address and something still needs to be done with it, the latter two are the bigger problem. And if people were mailing an @ripe.net address, it would seem to shift the responsibility for enforcement, and the blame for breach, onto the NCC?
Not all all. Fourth, RIPE could find out, what member really reads abuse reports and control which one are failing with "User unknown", "Mailbox full" aso. The usefullness would be that NCC could monitor wich member gets how many complaints to quickly overlook what member really needs more information about how to secure the own networks. Most newer providers are no even aware of, that there own customers are causing a lot of trouble.
As the agenda will, in no small part, feature presentations and discussions, it is difficult to proceed as you're suggesting, however consensus is not something that is reached purely at meetings. The mailing list, where more members can participate is, as I've mentioned, the main location for dicussion. To take, for instance, the IRT object
But there is no discussion. And this might be, becuase most discussion currently happens at the meetings. Thats why everybody on the list should now, what will be discussed on the meetings to give feedback BEFORE the meeting ist happening. If people get the feeling, that there ideas and input are welcome, they might even appear at the mettings ...
There are certain things that it's possible to give feedback on, other things it's more difficult to give feedback on, especially presentations
But at least the agenda could be discussed. Where are the archives of this list ? http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg does not point me to the right page ? I would really like to flip through them now.
which will only be finished shortly before the WG meeting. I will, as I promised, be publishing a draft agenda for the meeting before the end of this week and we can see what comes from that.
Again, doing anythign at meetings cuts out the majority of the members, this is like an oligarchy ...
Anything? By the extension of that logic we'd never have meetings. The
I meant "doing everthing at meetings".
reality of human social interaction is that we're still better at doing things when we're face to face with each other for short periods of time. There is no intent to cut people out, remote participation is now much easier, no hard decisions are made (consensus is not declared purely based on a meeting) and minutes are posted.
Well, maybe there will be more ideas coming ...
For agenda items?
Sure, did anybody ever asked for them ? Im maybe old and forget a lot, but quickly flicked through the last mails from the list and did not find anything like "call for agenda items".
Really? I sent two mails, one on the 10th of March, one on the 31st.
Well, they did not reach me ... Checked my archive, my antispam-folders, nothing.
I've received a couple of offers of talks, they will be happening at the meeting. I also received a suggestion of something to look at, so I did. :) Generally a call for items goes out two months before a meeting, so yes. Please note, these two mails were the latest two on the list before Claus' mail on the 6th.
There is a lot to discuss. - first I would call for agenda items - then I would call for anti-spam-system hosted by RIPE
Then we should talk in details about all this to finally find the best ideas and solution and these should be talked about at the meetings. I bet that lots of people will attend meetings, when their ideas will find there way to meetings ...
Their ideas will find their way to meetings, please stop claiming otherwise without any evidence to support that. Agenda items have always been called for. So far very few concrete ideas have been put forth. The notion you raised of an abuse address requires a lot more fleshing out before it could become a proposal and be properly
Indeed, lets discuss it. Here. So far, I only received two comments. One from you simply saying "dont think its good for anything" and from sombody else saying "dont like it". Did not receive one usefull and productive comment ...
discussed. A variety of questions spring to mind for me, some of which I've outlined above. However without more detail, there will not be proper discussion.
Maybe everybody on this list could comment it, I collect the ideas and improvements and re-post it to the list ? 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 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de
Regards,
Brian.
On 8 Apr 2010, at 11:37, Frank Gadegast wrote:
Maybe everybody on this list could comment it, I collect the ideas and improvements and re-post it to the list ?
If you write a proposal people will do that. Unless there is something concrete to discuss, all we have is more talk. You have suggested enough to start a draft proposal that can be worked on to deliver an outcome, but first it needs a concrete proposal as a starting point. HTH f
"Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast" wrote the following on 08/04/2010 11:37:
(still waiting on a discussion of the system I discribed arround lunch time)
Are you talking about replicating the Tobias' APNIC proposal in the RIPE region and/or publishing lists of non-responders? I, the list and, I
No, Im talking about an abuse-adress like ip1.ip2.ip3.ip4@abuse.ripe.net wich forward all incoming abuse reports to the responsible member I discribed.
Then by all means write a proposal, please. From a personal point of
A proposal should be discussed with lots of people to get enough input first. This list would be perfect for this.
Perhaps a better way to actually have discussion would be to formulate your thoughts into more than a one line entry, try to describe how it would work etc, perhaps with a small group of people, then present a more concrete idea to the list for further discussion. Ideally those behind an idea would present a proposal as the starting point for list. The way you have presented this so far has either been missed or there is not enough there to discuss.
There are certain things that it's possible to give feedback on, other things it's more difficult to give feedback on, especially presentations
But at least the agenda could be discussed.
Of course it can.
Where are the archives of this list ? http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg does not point me to the right page ?
I would really like to flip through them now.
The old Anti-Spam WG archives are here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/anti-spam-wg/index.html And the Anti-Abuse WG archives are here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/anti-abuse-wg/index.html
Sure, did anybody ever asked for them ? Im maybe old and forget a lot, but quickly flicked through the last mails from the list and did not find anything like "call for agenda items".
Really? I sent two mails, one on the 10th of March, one on the 31st.
Well, they did not reach me ... Checked my archive, my antispam-folders, nothing.
It has been pointed out to me by the lovely NCC staff who moderate the mailing lists that there seems to be some confusion over which email address you're subscribed to the group under as you appear to be using both frank@powerweb.de and phade@www.powerweb.de. Currently I'm assuming that mails are being sent from phade@, which isn't subscribed, but that's something you may wish to investigate. Certainly, both mails reached the list.
Did not receive one usefull and productive comment ...
I don't think there was much to discuss, although you mentioned some points in your last mail. I really would encourage you to collect your thoughts, possibly talk to some other people off-list, then write a mail to the list setting out your idea, how it would work, the pros and cons etc. This would be a far more effective idea than burying them in the middle of a discussion.
discussed. A variety of questions spring to mind for me, some of which I've outlined above. However without more detail, there will not be proper discussion.
Maybe everybody on this list could comment it, I collect the ideas and improvements and re-post it to the list ?
Everybody won't, such is the nature of these things, but you have a better chance of a better response with a clear mail setting out your idea in detail. Regards, Brian.
participants (10)
-
Aftab Siddiqui -
Brian Nisbet -
Esa Laitinen -
Fearghas McKay -
Frank Gadegast -
furio ercolessi -
Gert Doering -
Ian Eiloart -
Jogi Hofmüller -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight