2006-04 New Policy Proposal (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)
PDP Number: 2006-04 Contact e-mail Address Requirements Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal suggests that working and up-to-date contact e-mail addresses should be maintained at all times for address space that is registered in the RIPE Database. You can find the full proposal at: http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-04.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 20 September 2006. Regards, Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
One question I have about this: "Every organisation controlling an IP address should provide at least one working contact e-mail address where notifications of abuse emanating from that IP address can be sent." Several ISPs maintain abuse email addresses, but when you submit abuse reports to the supplied address they send an auto-responder forcing you to resubmit the data via a web form. What is the RIPE policy on this? Surely ISPs should not be making it hard for users / admins etc., to report abuse to them Regards Michele Michele http://www.mneylon.com/blog/ http://www.searchenginecookbook.com/ http://www.irishblogs.info - top Irish blogs/bloggers
Hi,
Several ISPs maintain abuse email addresses, but when you submit abuse reports to the supplied address they send an auto-responder forcing you to resubmit the data via a web form.
This is the reaction to all this stupid auto complain tools which sends you a mail on every packet their IDS reports. Sometimes over 100 to the same incident. The other thing is you get allot of mails which doesn't include any useful information like header, source or destination ip address etc. I also want to mention the copyright infringements mails which are also abuse the system.
Surely ISPs should not be making it hard for users / admins etc., to report abuse to them
True, but you need also a policy for the admins ;-) Erich -- * Erich Hohermuth IP Engineer - SolNet (AS 9044) PGPKEY-46A08FCB * * phone: +41 32 686 8220 / sip:9044*463@inoc-dba.pch.net *
Michele wrote:
"Every organisation controlling an IP address should provide at least one working contact e-mail address where notifications of abuse emanating from that IP address can be sent."
Several ISPs maintain abuse email addresses, but when you submit abuse reports to the supplied address they send an auto-responder forcing you to resubmit the data via a web form.
What is the RIPE policy on this?
Do you really not tied of reading tons of spam (yes, super wise guys send spam right to abuse@! It is cool! ;) )? So sometime it is only way to be sure it is a human is sending that e-mail... I think we should see not on the form, but on the reaction for the abuse report. Also I think it is good idea to periodically check other contacts (fax, phone) provided in RIPE objects, as well as adding "pager:" contact information (ICQ,AIM,JABBER,etc). -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On 23 Aug 2006, at 13:24, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
A new RIPE Policy proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. This proposal suggests that working and up-to-date contact e-mail addresses should be maintained at all times for address space that is registered in the RIPE Database.
A well intentioned proposal, I support the spirit of it. I do recommend that we clarify what a 'working' email address is (e.g. state that the mailbox should also be manned, by someone who can read at least the local language). I also think that 4.0's modification should encourage an ISP to make best efforts to limit all network abuse, not just 'abusive messages'. The rationale 'b' doesn't seem to be complete, the document seems to be truncated at 'which implies "correct documentation'. I also think we should offer for debate, an amendment that LIRs should man a mailbox at an address which might be known by only ripe and the LIR. This could, in an efficient organisation, be a 'fasttrack' escalation mailbox that solves the issues described in Rationale A of the proposal. Andy (AJBD-RIPE)
participants (5)
-
Andy Davidson -
Erich Hohermuth -
Filiz Yilmaz -
Max Tulyev -
Michele