Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Hi, On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:13:32AM +0200, ox wrote:
clearly you are supportive of this as non support of this makes no sense other than to derail ethical and moral behavior towards public owned allocated resources.
That's an invalid conclusion. Someone might share the same goal ("have a robust registry with valid contact information") but still disagree with the particular means - any policy change needs to be weighted (at least) against "does it achieve the set goal?" and "does the extra effort imposed relate positively to the effect". Which is why I'm not speaking up in favour or against this proposal either. I share the goals ("robust registry") but I have my doubts that this is going to achieve much - those that have good documentation today will have a bit more work, and those that do not care will continue to not care, finding ways to fulfill the policy, but still not caring. We can force people to have abuse mailboxes that trigger a response if a mail from the RIPE NCC is received. We (as in "the 10 people that speak up their mind here") can not force them to have working abuse handling, as in, infected customer systems gets fixed, IoT shit gets tracked down and disconnected, malicious customers get thrown out. Thus, ambivalence on the policy. Gert Doering -- long time handler of abuse@ -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 08:35:14 +0200 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
Hi, always good to hear your voice :)
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:13:32AM +0200, ox wrote:
clearly you are supportive of this as non support of this makes no sense other than to derail ethical and moral behavior towards public owned allocated resources.
That's an invalid conclusion. Someone might share the same goal ("have a robust registry with valid contact information") but still disagree with the particular means - any policy change needs to be weighted (at least) against "does it achieve the set goal?" and "does the extra effort imposed relate positively to the effect".
okay, but with respect. yours is an invalid conclusion. even when re-reading your reply above: my opinion on your reply is that you are being economic with your truth.
Which is why I'm not speaking up in favour or against this proposal either. I share the goals ("robust registry") but I have my doubts that this is going to achieve much - those that have good documentation today will have a bit more work, and those that do not care will continue to not care, finding ways to fulfill the policy, but still not caring.
if nobody cares then nothing will happen, yet, there is a need for something to happen. My central point is this: +++++ requiring abuse email (RR data) to be valid and functional is a very basic tenet (as it relates to morality and ethics as well as RR "goals") +++++
We can force people to have abuse mailboxes that trigger a response if a mail from the RIPE NCC is received.
this is perfectly fine, imnsho, as it indicates receipt of communications, even if it is autoresponded. it just cannot autorespond: that this is a non monitored mailbox - as by definition, in this proposal, it has to be functional. functional implies that it can receive and respond to communications and is not a "black hole" or dev/null
We (as in "the 10 people that speak up their mind here") can not force them to have working abuse handling, as in, infected customer systems gets fixed, IoT shit gets tracked down and disconnected, malicious customers get thrown out.
of course. the point is not to 'force' anyone to do anything. the point is to have functional real contact data and information. see the basic tenet above...
Thus, ambivalence on the policy.
is this a good thing? please reconsider your ambivalence? all it takes is for a few good people....(Edmond Burke...)
Gert Doering -- long time handler of abuse@
Andre ditto
Hi all, I'm very happy to see that in majority we have the same goal: "have a robust registry". However, thinking that there is a possibility nothing will change by proposing an information validation process is not our option. There were or supports or some remarks with regard to the effectiveness of the proposal during the discussion phase and we will take these into account to improve the idea. Regards Hervé -----Message d'origine----- De : anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] De la part de Gert Doering Envoyé : vendredi 6 octobre 2017 08:35 À : ox Cc : anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation) Hi, On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:13:32AM +0200, ox wrote:
clearly you are supportive of this as non support of this makes no
sense other than to derail ethical and moral behavior towards public
owned allocated resources.
That's an invalid conclusion. Someone might share the same goal ("have a robust registry with valid contact information") but still disagree with the particular means - any policy change needs to be weighted (at least) against "does it achieve the set goal?" and "does the extra effort imposed relate positively to the effect". Which is why I'm not speaking up in favour or against this proposal either. I share the goals ("robust registry") but I have my doubts that this is going to achieve much - those that have good documentation today will have a bit more work, and those that do not care will continue to not care, finding ways to fulfill the policy, but still not caring. We can force people to have abuse mailboxes that trigger a response if a mail from the RIPE NCC is received. We (as in "the 10 people that speak up their mind here") can not force them to have working abuse handling, as in, infected customer systems gets fixed, IoT shit gets tracked down and disconnected, malicious customers get thrown out. Thus, ambivalence on the policy. Gert Doering -- long time handler of abuse@ -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
participants (3)
-
Gert Doering -
herve.clement＠orange.com -
ox