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

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
by Reza Farzan 26 Jul '12

26 Jul '12

Hi Tobias, Thank you for you comments. Storing abuse contact details in one location makes perfect sense and satisfies many who are concerned about Abuse/Spam activities. Further simplifying this often confusing aspect of Abuse reporting channel in Whois directory should be one of the goals for RIPE's Anti-Abuse WG. Without any reservations, I support this practical proposal. Thank you, Reza Farzan +++++++++ -----Original Message----- >From: Tobias Knecht <tk(a)abusix.com> >Sent: Jul 26, 2012 10:57 AM >To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net >Cc: Denis Walker <denis(a)ripe.net>, rezaf(a)mindspring.com >Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports > >Hi everybody, > >> If the policy proposal 2011-06 is approved by the community we can work >> towards storing abuse contact details in one location, referenced in one >> way and easily readable by humans and scripts. Of course it won't solve >> all problems, as some people were hoping for. But it is the first step >> of what can be a journey towards a more complete solution. > >That is absolutely true, there are some other important things that'll >need coverage step by step. > >Never the less this proposal is imho an important step into the right >direction, so please let Brian and me know if you are on the same page >or have any concerns. In both cases please let us know if you support >the proposal or if you have concerns. > >Thanks, > >Tobias >

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
by Reza Farzan 25 Jul '12

25 Jul '12

To complement what Alessandro said, it is good that RFC 6650 splits abuse complaints between "solicited" and "unsolicited" ones, even though it may confuse common users. The "solicited" should be reserved for Spam Cop, and other administrators who are trying to report Abuse/Spam activities to a network. The "unsolicited" channel could be like a web form that encourages users to report Abuse/Spam activities to a network like the one that GoDaddy has: https://supportcenter.godaddy.com/Abuse/SpamReport.aspx?ci=22420. This way, the "solicited" channel (abuse(a)domain-name.com) would remain free of unsolicited inquiries, and network administrators could mange it more efficiently and process legitimate reports promptly. Thank you, Reza Farzan =========== -----Original Message----- >From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely(a)tana.it> >Sent: Jul 24, 2012 2:22 PM >To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net >Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports > >On Tue 24/Jul/2012 17:34:01 +0200 Luis Muñoz wrote: >> I believe that having an optional "auto-abuse-mailbox" object (that >> is mandatory to use when present) dealing only with automated >> reports, could help anti-abuse operators (both in the report >> sending and receiving sides). > >Let me add one consideration to what Tobias wrote: > >RFC 6650 splits abuse complaints between "solicited" and "unsolicited" >ones. Also known as feedback loops, the former can be automated >according to the underlying agreement. One can use a different >reporting addresses for each subscription. > >Unsolicited complaints deserve a bit of thought: Who is sending them? > Why? When such questions are cleared, the stream of reports from >that operator can be directed to the appropriate bin, possibly by >negotiating a different address with the report generator. In fact, >that is the same as establishing a feedback loop, and it cannot be >automated fully for the same reasons why subscriptions to the early >kind of feedback loops cannot. > >See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6650#section-5.5

2 1

Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration Data
by Axel Pawlik 25 Jul '12

25 Jul '12

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC procedural document, "Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration Data", has been published. The document is available at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/due-diligence The RIPE NCC has a mandate from the RIPE community to keep an up-to-date and correct Internet number resource registry. In order to comply with this mandate, the RIPE NCC performs due diligence on organisations the RIPE NCC registers Internet number resource for. This document outlines the minimum information and documentation the RIPE NCC requires to make sure that the registration data is valid and up-to-date. Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
by Jørgen Hovland 25 Jul '12

25 Jul '12

2 1

2011-06 Review Period extended until *14 August* 2013 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
by Marco Schmidt 18 Jul '12

18 Jul '12

Dear colleagues, Yesterday we announced that the extended Review Period for this policy proposal would end on 13 August 2012. This date was incorrect. The correct end date for the extended Review Period for policy proposal 2011-06 is *14 August* 2012. We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net>. We apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. Regards, Marco Schmidt on behalf of Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2011-06 Review Period extended until 13 August 2013 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
by Marco Schmidt 17 Jul '12

17 Jul '12

Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposal 2011-06 has been extended until 13 August 2012. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Marco Schmidt on behalf of Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Discussion on 2011-06
by Brian Nisbet 26 Jun '12

26 Jun '12

Colleagues, Two weeks ago Emilio published the revised version of 2011-06 and the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis. I was hoping that this would answer some of the questions that were raised in the discussion phase and prompt further discussion of the proposal, but this hasn't happened. Could I ask the WG to take a look at the links: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06/draft and see if there are remaining questions or things you would like to discuss so we can gauge reaction to 2011-06? Thanks, Brian.

9 14

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Discussion on 2011-06
by James Davis 22 Jun '12

22 Jun '12

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 22/06/2012 12:57, Gilles Massen wrote: > May I ask where or when (as I obviously missed that)? > > This said, even of the TI community is probably the most efficient > creator of IRT objects, I'm not sure that they are the only > creator, and not the only consumer. This morning via the accredited teams list. James - -- James Davis 0300 999 2340 (+44 1235 822340) Senior CSIRT Member Lumen House, Library Avenue, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0SG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk/kXpUACgkQjsS2Y6D6yLwyMAD/fGA+fyO/SMh0ykYVZNM1/gXu oXhfO40KX9GGINK4wQgA/jaJuqBwB1hUtyK/oPhNIKKgdEHl0Ts9qNk3y3ZAKYre =XmX0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Janet is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Discussion on 2011-06
by James Davis 22 Jun '12

22 Jun '12

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 21/06/2012 17:28, Tobias Knecht wrote: > I think this is not a completely undiscussed topic at all. We have > already talked about the future of the IRT Object I've passed on the feedback from the NCC to the TI community. James - -- James Davis 0300 999 2340 (+44 1235 822340) Senior CSIRT Member Lumen House, Library Avenue, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0SG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk/kO7IACgkQjsS2Y6D6yLyjfwEAshrgM8Br3DlaZ/+wMWUzfUya XZwtPdE7Cxstl3DV9ZUBAML8iOLxVdp17ljQhzoZCHUsvC1gbuGGJVXr6S1at+f4 =gJPZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Janet is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] meeting minutes
by James Davis 19 Jun '12

19 Jun '12

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 12/06/2012 16:38, lists(a)help.org wrote: > they also claim "copyrights" on the data even though copyrights do > not cover lists of facts like whois data. IANA(EU)L, but I believe you are correct in that within the EU objective collections of data should not automatically obtain copyright protection. Entirely separate to copyright there do appear to be 'database rights' that allow the owner of a database to object to things like copying of the database to protect the effort that went into creating it. I expect there are a large number of harmless explanations for what you've seen, including: - - RoTLD believe that they've done something to confer copyright protection. - - Their notice is simply mistranslated into English - - Romania is a new member of the EU and hasn't yet harmonized this aspect of it's copyright law If you haven't done so already it'd be worth writing to them and asking. Regards, James - -- James Davis 0300 999 2340 (+44 1235 822340) Senior CSIRT Member Lumen House, Library Avenue, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0SG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk/YWUIACgkQjsS2Y6D6yLxA4AD/Srca7GMOXWqGFB4xdm37Qoc9 eOuENSISnaNXw3KK97IA/i3YjIsGf5H3SB/tN/SQ9Nv2bnZMgGzjjkSBiqNONvqw =lgfj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Janet is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG

11 22