Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 8, Issue 19
Hello!
The different pieces of contact information are all potential ways to get in touch with the Internet number resource holder. If you have difficulties reaching them via any of those details, you can report this to us. I would recommend making a reasonable attempt to contact them first though, for example by giving them a phone call if you find that their email addresses are no longer working.
My experience: I've used the form because the email contacts from a provider in Romania were invalid. The phone contact given in the RIPE database was only a mobile phone number in Romania. I searched for this number in the web and only get a few results which all directed to the entry in the RIPE database. So it seems that this (prepaid?) phone was only used to register this IP space with RIPE. My claim was denied because I didn't made an attempt to contact the provider on mobile phone in Romania. I didn't contact them because I don't speak Romanian and I feared retaliation from possible criminals in Romania. So for an individual it may be very difficult to fulfill all the external requirements which are made by RIPE NCC. And, of course, RIPE may be in a better position to repel retaliations. RIPE NCC wrote back that they don't have the staff to check if the entries in the database are correct. So if RIPE will guarantee the validity of the database today they seem not to have the personal capacity for research. Best regards, - Karl-Josef Ziegler
in which case we are wasting time and effort having this discussion, and regulatory compliance is probably the only thing that will produce a viable course of action --srs (iPad) On 14-Apr-2012, at 17:59, Karl-Josef Ziegler <kjz@gmx.net> wrote:
Hello!
The different pieces of contact information are all potential ways to get in touch with the Internet number resource holder. If you have difficulties reaching them via any of those details, you can report this to us. I would recommend making a reasonable attempt to contact them first though, for example by giving them a phone call if you find that their email addresses are no longer working.
My experience: I've used the form because the email contacts from a provider in Romania were invalid. The phone contact given in the RIPE database was only a mobile phone number in Romania. I searched for this number in the web and only get a few results which all directed to the entry in the RIPE database. So it seems that this (prepaid?) phone was only used to register this IP space with RIPE.
My claim was denied because I didn't made an attempt to contact the provider on mobile phone in Romania. I didn't contact them because I don't speak Romanian and I feared retaliation from possible criminals in Romania. So for an individual it may be very difficult to fulfill all the external requirements which are made by RIPE NCC. And, of course, RIPE may be in a better position to repel retaliations.
RIPE NCC wrote back that they don't have the staff to check if the entries in the database are correct. So if RIPE will guarantee the validity of the database today they seem not to have the personal capacity for research.
Best regards,
- Karl-Josef Ziegler
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
in which case we are wasting time
and effort having this discussion, and regulatory compliance is
not at all. its true that RIPE NCC neither has the staff nor the mandate to validate objects. RIPE NCC will always tell the complainant to try contacting the abuser and will never do anything else, simply because they dont have to (thats why all those forms are pretty useless). SO the question is, if the community wants the NCC to make more. There are little things the NCC could do and wont need extra staff, simple checks could be programmed and automated, like: (ordered from very simple to more complicated) - check if there is any email address for every object (my preferred ISP is surely telecomitalia.it or all those lovely ERX allocations we constantly get spam from, the only email address you can find is the one in the changed-by field) - validate the syntax of the abuse email address (like: abuse@ti.ru.only I always fall over) - check the domain, MX or A record of the domain (like the ones from online.kz, lovely :o) - check the availablity of those mailservers (my favorite is currently airtel.in, wich have severe internal problems, but thats not RIPE, ok) this will: - make the ISPs more aware of the problem - make them check their objects more regulary - kick out the entries that are really stupid I would call these basic validation checks, there are simple to implementent and do not cost anything. So: does the community want that to be implemented ? And: what could be done to fix those ? RIPE NCC has internal email addresses to contact there members, so a request to fix objects could be mail to those ... Furthermore the NCC could - send testmails to the email address and evaluate the return mails - send emails including a link to click More complicated, will probably cost something and will stress all members. So: does the community want those two to be implemented ? Kind regards, Frank probably the only thing that will produce a viable course of action
--srs (iPad)
On 14-Apr-2012, at 17:59, Karl-Josef Ziegler<kjz@gmx.net> wrote:
Hello!
The different pieces of contact information are all potential ways to get in touch with the Internet number resource holder. If you have difficulties reaching them via any of those details, you can report this to us. I would recommend making a reasonable attempt to contact them first though, for example by giving them a phone call if you find that their email addresses are no longer working.
My experience: I've used the form because the email contacts from a provider in Romania were invalid. The phone contact given in the RIPE database was only a mobile phone number in Romania. I searched for this number in the web and only get a few results which all directed to the entry in the RIPE database. So it seems that this (prepaid?) phone was only used to register this IP space with RIPE.
My claim was denied because I didn't made an attempt to contact the provider on mobile phone in Romania. I didn't contact them because I don't speak Romanian and I feared retaliation from possible criminals in Romania. So for an individual it may be very difficult to fulfill all the external requirements which are made by RIPE NCC. And, of course, RIPE may be in a better position to repel retaliations.
RIPE NCC wrote back that they don't have the staff to check if the entries in the database are correct. So if RIPE will guarantee the validity of the database today they seem not to have the personal capacity for research.
Best regards,
- Karl-Josef Ziegler
-- 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 ======================================================================
so we can address the dumb and careless type of isp this way, but there are usually multiple different channels to reach out to those the truly criminal netblock owners are a far greater problem dont you think? --srs (iPad) On 14-Apr-2012, at 19:37, Frank Gadegast <ripe-anti-spam-wg@powerweb.de> wrote:
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
in which case we are wasting time
not at all.
its true that RIPE NCC neither has the staff nor the mandate to validate objects. RIPE NCC will always tell the complainant to try contacting the abuser and will never do anything else, simply because they dont have to (thats why all those forms are pretty useless).
SO the question is, if the community wants the NCC to make more.
There are little things the NCC could do and wont need extra staff, simple checks could be programmed and automated, like: (ordered from very simple to more complicated)
- check if there is any email address for every object (my preferred ISP is surely telecomitalia.it or all those lovely ERX allocations we constantly get spam from, the only email address you can find is the one in the changed-by field) - validate the syntax of the abuse email address (like: abuse@ti.ru.only I always fall over) - check the domain, MX or A record of the domain (like the ones from online.kz, lovely :o) - check the availablity of those mailservers (my favorite is currently airtel.in, wich have severe internal problems, but thats not RIPE, ok)
this will: - make the ISPs more aware of the problem - make them check their objects more regulary - kick out the entries that are really stupid
I would call these basic validation checks, there are simple to implementent and do not cost anything.
So: does the community want that to be implemented ? And: what could be done to fix those ? RIPE NCC has internal email addresses to contact there members, so a request to fix objects could be mail to those ...
Furthermore the NCC could - send testmails to the email address and evaluate the return mails - send emails including a link to click
More complicated, will probably cost something and will stress all members.
So: does the community want those two to be implemented ?
Kind regards, Frank
and effort having this discussion, and regulatory compliance is probably the only thing that will produce a viable course of action
--srs (iPad)
On 14-Apr-2012, at 17:59, Karl-Josef Ziegler<kjz@gmx.net> wrote:
Hello!
The different pieces of contact information are all potential ways to get in touch with the Internet number resource holder. If you have difficulties reaching them via any of those details, you can report this to us. I would recommend making a reasonable attempt to contact them first though, for example by giving them a phone call if you find that their email addresses are no longer working.
My experience: I've used the form because the email contacts from a provider in Romania were invalid. The phone contact given in the RIPE database was only a mobile phone number in Romania. I searched for this number in the web and only get a few results which all directed to the entry in the RIPE database. So it seems that this (prepaid?) phone was only used to register this IP space with RIPE.
My claim was denied because I didn't made an attempt to contact the provider on mobile phone in Romania. I didn't contact them because I don't speak Romanian and I feared retaliation from possible criminals in Romania. So for an individual it may be very difficult to fulfill all the external requirements which are made by RIPE NCC. And, of course, RIPE may be in a better position to repel retaliations.
RIPE NCC wrote back that they don't have the staff to check if the entries in the database are correct. So if RIPE will guarantee the validity of the database today they seem not to have the personal capacity for research.
Best regards,
- Karl-Josef Ziegler
--
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 ======================================================================
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
so we can address the dumb and careless type of isp this way, but there are usually multiple different channels to reach out to those
the truly criminal netblock owners are a far greater problem dont you think?
Absolutly true, this will not get the bad guys, but NCC could easily eliminate mistakes that were done by accident. Or do you think, that Kabeldeutschland (AS31334) is using a domain for his abuse email address, that they owned once, but dont own anymore and that they did not correct this on purpose ? I think its a good and easy and cheap start for a validation, so why not correting whats possible ? I still like to have more votes. Kind regards, Frank
--srs (iPad)
On 14-Apr-2012, at 19:37, Frank Gadegast<ripe-anti-spam-wg@powerweb.de> wrote:
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
in which case we are wasting time
not at all.
its true that RIPE NCC neither has the staff nor the mandate to validate objects. RIPE NCC will always tell the complainant to try contacting the abuser and will never do anything else, simply because they dont have to (thats why all those forms are pretty useless).
SO the question is, if the community wants the NCC to make more.
There are little things the NCC could do and wont need extra staff, simple checks could be programmed and automated, like: (ordered from very simple to more complicated)
- check if there is any email address for every object (my preferred ISP is surely telecomitalia.it or all those lovely ERX allocations we constantly get spam from, the only email address you can find is the one in the changed-by field) - validate the syntax of the abuse email address (like: abuse@ti.ru.only I always fall over) - check the domain, MX or A record of the domain (like the ones from online.kz, lovely :o) - check the availablity of those mailservers (my favorite is currently airtel.in, wich have severe internal problems, but thats not RIPE, ok)
this will: - make the ISPs more aware of the problem - make them check their objects more regulary - kick out the entries that are really stupid
I would call these basic validation checks, there are simple to implementent and do not cost anything.
So: does the community want that to be implemented ? And: what could be done to fix those ? RIPE NCC has internal email addresses to contact there members, so a request to fix objects could be mail to those ...
Furthermore the NCC could - send testmails to the email address and evaluate the return mails - send emails including a link to click
More complicated, will probably cost something and will stress all members.
So: does the community want those two to be implemented ?
Kind regards, Frank
and effort having this discussion, and regulatory compliance is probably the only thing that will produce a viable course of action
--srs (iPad)
On 14-Apr-2012, at 17:59, Karl-Josef Ziegler<kjz@gmx.net> wrote:
Hello!
The different pieces of contact information are all potential ways to get in touch with the Internet number resource holder. If you have difficulties reaching them via any of those details, you can report this to us. I would recommend making a reasonable attempt to contact them first though, for example by giving them a phone call if you find that their email addresses are no longer working.
My experience: I've used the form because the email contacts from a provider in Romania were invalid. The phone contact given in the RIPE database was only a mobile phone number in Romania. I searched for this number in the web and only get a few results which all directed to the entry in the RIPE database. So it seems that this (prepaid?) phone was only used to register this IP space with RIPE.
My claim was denied because I didn't made an attempt to contact the provider on mobile phone in Romania. I didn't contact them because I don't speak Romanian and I feared retaliation from possible criminals in Romania. So for an individual it may be very difficult to fulfill all the external requirements which are made by RIPE NCC. And, of course, RIPE may be in a better position to repel retaliations.
RIPE NCC wrote back that they don't have the staff to check if the entries in the database are correct. So if RIPE will guarantee the validity of the database today they seem not to have the personal capacity for research.
Best regards,
- Karl-Josef Ziegler
--
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 ======================================================================
-- 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 ======================================================================
Frank, On Saturday, 2012-04-14 16:07:19 +0200, Frank Gadegast <ripe-anti-spam-wg@powerweb.de> wrote:
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
in which case we are wasting time
not at all.
its true that RIPE NCC neither has the staff nor the mandate to validate objects. RIPE NCC will always tell the complainant to try contacting the abuser and will never do anything else, simply because they dont have to (thats why all those forms are pretty useless).
SO the question is, if the community wants the NCC to make more.
There are little things the NCC could do and wont need extra staff,
It's not inconceivable that the RIPE NCC could implement manual checks. (I think APNIC actually already has staff that follow up to correct contact information.) If these were done only when a problem is reported it could be hundreds of checks per year, not thousands; probably an extra 2 or 3 staff, so only increasing the RIPE NCC's operating budget by a few percent. Such a policy wouldn't satisfy people concerned with intentional abuse, but it is a necessary step. Personally I support both automated methods of checking contact information (like you propose) and manual methods of checking and updating contact information. I'm not sure how easy it would be to get consensus though. :) -- Shane
Shane Kerr wrote:
Frank,
It's not inconceivable that the RIPE NCC could implement manual checks. (I think APNIC actually already has staff that follow up to correct contact information.) If these were done only when a problem is reported it could be hundreds of checks per year, not thousands; probably an extra 2 or 3 staff, so only increasing the RIPE NCC's operating budget by a few percent.
Im not talking about manual checks, those are automatic checks. All checks I described are automatic checks, the last once are only a bit more complicated to implement. You can start with the oldest objects and run these tests in a couple of days over the whole db. If a automatic test fails, simply mail the customer email address (that is known only by the NCC) and the mantainer (if there is one) and the address in the changed-by field (well there IS one) and wait ... the NCC could send a reminder a week later and if nothing happens, a big notice could be shown, when the LIR logs into the LIR portal next time.
Such a policy wouldn't satisfy people concerned with intentional abuse, but it is a necessary step.
Thats what I mean, start with the easy things.
Personally I support both automated methods of checking contact
So thats a +1 ?
information (like you propose) and manual methods of checking and updating contact information. I'm not sure how easy it would be to get consensus though. :)
Well, there is no harm to the members, its just reminders. I would love to know, if one of my objects has a not working email address. Kind regards, Frank
-- Shane
-- 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 ======================================================================
Frank, On Saturday, 2012-04-14 22:46:53 +0200, Frank Gadegast <ripe-anti-spam-wg@powerweb.de> wrote:
Im not talking about manual checks, those are automatic checks. All checks I described are automatic checks, the last once are only a bit more complicated to implement.
Sure, I'm just saying that even manual checks are pretty cheap. But of course automated checks are really, really cheap. :)
Personally I support both automated methods of checking contact
So thats a +1 ?
Yes, +1 to your proposal! -- Shane
So thats a +1 ?
Yes, +1 to your proposal!
+1 added from me. Pepijn +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Disclaimer Dit e-mailbericht kan vertrouwelijke informatie bevatten of informatie die is beschermd door een beroepsgeheim. Indien dit bericht niet voor u is bestemd, wijzen wij u erop dat elke vorm van verspreiding, vermenigvuldiging of ander gebruik ervan niet is toegestaan. Indien dit bericht blijkbaar bij vergissing bij u terecht is gekomen, verzoeken wij u ons daarvan direct op de hoogte te stellen via tel.nr 070 315 3500 of e-mail mailto:mail@opta.nl en het bericht te vernietigen. Dit e-mailbericht is uitsluitend gecontroleerd op virussen. OPTA aanvaardt geen enkele aansprakelijkheid voor de feitelijke inhoud en juistheid van dit bericht en er kunnen geen rechten aan worden ontleend. This e-mail message may contain confidential information or information protected by professional privilege. If it is not intended for you, you should be aware that any distribution, copying or other form of use of this message is not permitted. If it has apparently reached you by mistake, we urge you to notify us by phone +31 70 315 3500 or e-mail mailto:mail@opta.nl and destroy the message immediately. This e-mail message has only been checked for viruses. The accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness of the information provided cannot be guaranteed. OPTA expressly disclaims any responsibility in relation to the information in this e-mail message. No rights can be derived from this message.
participants (5)
-
Frank Gadegast -
Karl-Josef Ziegler -
Shane Kerr -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Vissers, Pepijn