Hi,
With this solution how to you propose that sub-allocated networks manage
the complaints? These networks are not typically and LIR so would have
no such access to an LIR based system.
The sub-allocated prefixes carry their own abuse-c which as pointed out
by Gert, already gets validated by RIPE.
On 29/04/2020 13:38, S�rgio Rocha wrote:
> I like this approach, should be like what Elad Wrote:
>
> �
>
> To my opinion, Ripe should create its own anti-abuse system, each LIR
> will have login access to it (LIR will be able to choose to receive
> notifications through sms / email) and to mark each abuse complaint as
> resolved or not (that system can also have an API so LIR's will be able
> to pull their abuse complaints), the main issue is that complaints to
> that system will not be able to be done automatically or by email - only
> manually by form filling with captcha. (after the LIR will mark an abuse
> complain as resolved - the complainer will receive an email address also
> to confirm with him if issue is resolved or not, non-detailed statistics
> will be able to be displayed to the whole community - to see the
> percentage of how many manual complaints weren't handled by each LIR)�
>
> �
>
> No Spam, accountable, possible to integrate with LIR system, possible to
> have public rate about �abuse dealing�
>
> �
>
> �
>
> �
>
> �
>
> �
>
> *De:* anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> *Em Nome De *Elad Cohen
> *Enviada:* 29 de abril de 2020 11:15
> *Para:* anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net; Serge Droz <serge.droz@first.org>
> *Assunto:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
> "abuse-mailbox")
>
> �
>
> What is this ?
>
> �
>
> "However, the community should report any situation to the RIPE NCC,
> which can provide (anonymous) periodical statistics to the community,
> which can take further decisions about that."
>
> �
>
> Ripe members are informers?
>
> �
>
> "divide and conquer" strategy ?
>
> �
>
> Abuse email addresses (just like any other email address) are being
> spammed, not only by non-relevant spammers but also by automatic useless
> services that are installed at servers that don't take themselves any
> measure of proper configuration to avoid the automatic useless services.
>
> �
>
> To my opinion, Ripe should create its own anti-abuse system, each LIR
> will have login access to it (LIR will be able to choose to receive
> notifications through sms / email) and to mark each abuse complaint as
> resolved or not (that system can also have an API so LIR's will be able
> to pull their abuse complaints), the main issue is that complaints to
> that system will not be able to be done automatically or by email - only
> manually by form filling with captcha. (after the LIR will mark an abuse
> complain as resolved - the complainer will receive an email address also
> to confirm with him if issue is resolved or not, non-detailed statistics
> will be able to be displayed to the whole community - to see the
> percentage of how many manual complaints weren't handled by each LIR)
>
> �
>
> ---
>
> �
>
> Besides the above, I also believe that we as a community should not
> accept complainers which are not taking the most basic configuration
> actions to protect their systems, and would consider these complaints as
> spam. In order for abuse complaints not to be abused.
>
> �
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Elad
>
> �
>
> �
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2020 11:22 AM
> *To:* anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <
mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of
> "abuse-mailbox")
>
> �
>
> Hi All
>
> I think this is a good policy.
>
> We can always find use cases where it fails, but it will help in some
> cases.
>
> And if some one is not able to answer an e-mail every six month, there
> are probably underlying issues. Also the argument, that the bad guys
> flood the mailbox is not really acceptable. It just means you can't
> filter spam.
>
> The proposal does not check how the reports are used. But it helps us to
> enumerate organizations, that don't act, coming up with various excuses,
> along the lines the best problems are some one else's problems, so let's
> make it some on else's problem.
>
> The fact is: Most mature organizations are perfectly capable of handling
> such mail boxes, even if they have a high load.
>
> Coming from the incident response side, I'm tiered of people constantly
> telling me, that issues are not their problem
>
> Best
> Serge
>
>
>
>
>
> On 28.04.20 16:01, Petrit Hasani wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> A new version of RIPE policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of
>> "abuse-mailbox"", is now available for discussion.
>>
>> This proposal aims to have the RIPE NCC validate "abuse-c:" information
>> more often and introduces a new validation process.
>>
>> Most of the text has been rewritten following the last round of
>> discussion and the proposal is now at version 3.0. Some key points in
>> this version:
>>
>> - The abuse-mailbox should not force the sender to use a form
>> - The validation process must ensure that the abuse mailbox is able to
>> receive messages
>> - The validation should happen at least every six months
>>
>> You can find the full proposal at:
>>
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04
>>
>> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this
>> four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide
>> feedback to the proposer.
>>
>> At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of
>> the Anti-Abuse Working Group Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the
>> proposal.
>>
>> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
>> <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <
mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net>> before 27 May
> 2020.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> --
>> Petrit Hasani
>> Policy Officer
>> RIPE NCC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Dr. Serge Droz
> Chair of the FIRST Board of Directors
>
https://www.first.org
>