October 2013 - anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Automatic IP -> abuse email address mapping
by Olaf van der Spek 15 Dec '13

15 Dec '13

Hi, I hope this is the right list for such a question. How does one map an IP address to an abuse email address in an automated way? I assume scripts exist, but I haven't found any. Does everyone roll their own? -- Olaf

13 38

abuse-c + org / inetnum
by Gilles Massen 19 Oct '13

19 Oct '13

Dear WGs, In the light of the upcoming RIPE meeting I'd like to bring the problem of a single entity (organisation) wanting different abuse-c for different resources up again. The discussion starting in June (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2013-June/004079.html ) was rather open ended. Apparently the only workable solution at this point is to create a duplicate organisation object with a different abuse-c. Is data duplication really the solution that the WGs would like? Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 6, rue Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg tel: (+352) 424409 fax: (+352) 422473

4 4

contradictory abuse contacts and some stats
by Frank Gadegast 17 Oct '13

17 Oct '13

Hi, we realize more and more networks having an abuse-c now, but also realize that most networks now have contradictory abuse email addresses spreaded in between new abuse contacts or old remarks or abuse-mailbox-fields. Might be a good idea to contact alls memmbers and LIR again to fix their records now ... Find some stats from our blacklist attached, it shows basically, that there is no big effort to be seen from spammers or spam friendly or ignorant LIRs to use the new abuse-c, the percentage of networks that are sending spam AND having an abuse-c contact is going up and down, but has not even reached 50% ... Pretty poor. Kind regards, Frank -- MOTD: "have you enabled SSL on a website or mailbox today ?" -- 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 ======================================================================

2 1

Call for feedback on 2013-01: Openness about Policy Violations
by Sander Steffann 17 Oct '13

17 Oct '13

Hello working group, We (the authors of 2013-01) are not sure how to continue with our policy proposal. To refresh your memories here is the summary of the proposal: > The RIPE NCC is the membership organisation that manages the shared public resources of IP addresses and Autonomous System Numbers in its service region. This proposal makes complaints about delegated resources more visible. It also specifies a separate list that documents all reclaimed resources. > > The goals are to provide more insight into the good stewardship of the RIPE NCC and to encourage assistance in stopping abuse of these shared public resources. > > This proposal explicitly does not set or change any policies about assignment, allocation or revocation of these resources. The latest version of the proposal hasn't received any feedback for the working group. Is this still something this working group wants, or should we withdraw the proposal? If you want this policy proposal to go forward: please speak up before the 17th of November If we receive no significant support then the authors will withdraw the policy proposal. Thank you, Sander Steffann Shane Kerr A.k.a. the authors of 2013-01

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum
by Elvis Velea 10 Oct '13

10 Oct '13

Hi, On 10/10/13 5:50 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: > * Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> [2013-10-08 13:33]: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 11:00:28PM +0200, Gilles Massen wrote: >>> Something else in mind: as before: allow abuse-c for inet*num. Prefer >> >> This. >> >> (But I've said this before :-) - I do not see it as a useful excercise >> having to create an organization: object for the sole purpose of being >> able to have a different abuse-c: for some inet(6)num object) > > ++++++1 I think that having the abuse-c role linked to the org object was a great idea. I also understand that some organisation may want to have different abuse contacts/roles defined for different IP blocks. One way on how this could be fixed, in my opinion, is by allowing an abuse-c role to be referenced in the inet*num object (but only if the inet*num object references an org that already has an abuse-c role referenced). In this case, the general abuse-c would be the one referenced in the org and the 'local' abuse-c would be the role referenced in the inet*num object. cheers, elvis

1 0

RIPE67 AA-WG Agenda - Latest
by Brian Nisbet 09 Oct '13

09 Oct '13

Morning (where I am, certainly), We've made a small tweak to the AA-WG agenda for Thursday of next week, swapping some items around and I just wanted to update you all: https://ripe67.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/anti-abuse-wg/ Thursday, 17 October 14:00 – 15:30 A. Administrative Matters - Welcome - Scribe, Jabber, Stenography - Microphone Etiquette - Approve Minutes from RIPE 66 - Finalise agenda B. Policies - RIPE Policy 2011-06 Update, RIPE NCC - RIPE Policy Proposal 2013-01 C. Update - C1. Recent List Discussion - C2. AA-WG Charter D. Interactions - D1. Working Groups - D2. RIPE NCC Gov/LEA Interactions Update E. Presentation - E1. ACDC Project - E2. x-arf – Tobias Knecht X. A.O.B. Z. Agenda for RIPE 68 Obviously if anyone does have any last minute additions to the agenda, please let Tobias and I know. Brian

1 0