Florian, As I had stated in my earlier message, I had forwarded my Spam report to the following address [admin@uzpak.uz], but it came back with this error message: ------- A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: ripeadmin@uzpak.uz SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<ripeadmin@uzpak.uz>: host mail.uzpak.uz [84.54.64.37]: 553 sorry, this recipient is not in my validrcptto list (#5.7.1) ------- As you may know, many networks show and use invalid, or even fake contact e-mail addresses in order to frustrate everyone, and the National PSDN "UZPAK" is no exception. On a daily basis, I report such abuse violations to Spamcop.net, http://www.spamcop.net/, and in many instances, the IP address either does not have an Abuse Reporting e-mail, or the e-mail addresses listed in the Whois directory is bogus. So, having a street address, a phone number, and even an invalid email address, does not change anything; it creates frustration and despair. One way to hold all networks accountable perhaps would be for the RIPE NCC to send an e-mail [once a year] to addresses in their Whois listing, thereby confirming and verifying their correctness and validity. Thank you, Reza Farzan rezaf@mindspring.com ===========
-----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Florian Weimer Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 2:35 PM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Laura Cobley; Michele Neylon :: Blacknight; <rezaf@mindspring.com>; <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] National PSDN "UZPAK"
* Suresh Ramasubramanian:
There is clearly a fiduciary duty as the custodians of a scarce, depleting, common good.
So, why would an analogy about due diligence not score points?
Because we do not value accountability in our financial institutions.
Back to the original topic. I agree that we face various issues with service provider accountability, but one of the major problems with this and similar discussions is that those who demand some form of action make claims which are quite obviously not factually correct.
The allocated resource covering 213.230.122.0 is the inetnum object 213.230.64.0 - 213.230.127.255, allocated to this LIR:
organisation: ORG-UNCN1-RIPE org-name: Uzpak Net (Country Net of Independence Republic of Uzbekistan) org-type: LIR address: National Data Network Company 8th floor, 8, Druzhba Narodov str., 700043, Tashkent, Uzbekistan phone: +998 71 114 6314 phone: +998 71 144 4804 fax-no: +998 71 114 6322 e-mail: admin@uzpak.uz admin-c: BM2509-RIPE admin-c: MBA-RIPE mnt-ref: AS8193-MNT mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT changed: [...] 20120308 source: RIPE
There you have a street address, a phone number, and even an email address. Does this change anything about accountability? Not sure.
For PA resources, such information is relatively easy to find. However, RIPE NCC is not able to provide this as a service, and restricts access to the database in a way that makes it impossible to offer such a service to the general public. But these obstacles are created by RIPE NCC and the RIPE community, and not the resource holders.
Again, let me stress that this case is far from unique. We often see claims that some network is "bad". I'm slightly out of touch with regards to current network-wide events, but I still feel that I should be able to recognize proof of badness as such. But what happens far too often is that folks who I know are knowledgeable about these things cannot express their rationale in terms I can understand or accept as proof. This is a problem.