Bradley Freeman wrote: Hello,

...

Its only against members, that are ignoring that there attitude or business model causes real harm to others.

This proposal still will not help the abuse desks which are uncooperative which is the real problem.

Yes, thats true, if your are willing to ignore reports, it will help nothing. But it will help to make uneducated members more aware and to help others that are not really far in the process of developing a real abuse team.

...

...

If a RIPE member has an abuse contact and sets up abuse contact objects for every allocation, why do you need anything else?

Like I outline already: - whois is complicated and unusefull for end users

And do you believe that this proposal will be used by end users who couldn't use whois?

Yes, it this easy IP-scheme-email address will get public, there will be a lot of more people akt, when they receive spam. Our customers asking as a lot, where to report spam too ... ... and we have no easy answer to that.

...

- IRT objects makes it even more complicated

I simply disagree, IRT objects simplify the whois and provide a clear contact email.

IRT objects will be additional and maybe even non-mandatory again. It will end up having two things to check. The remarks of a netrange object, maybe even the route object and the IRT object. And thats send all different for a lot of RIRs. If like the IRT object being a help, it would have to be mandatory, and there we start again.

...

- nobody is meassuring the members so far - nobody has detailed data about how much abuse is really happening except really well-known blacklists like spamhaus

My network != your network, I don't see any point in measuring the abuse from ISPs in this manner. As James said previously larger networks will generate greater amounts of abuse, and ISPs with different businesses models will generate varying amounts of abuse, a high level of abuse from a network is not indicative that you are running a bad network. Additionally there is nothing that RIPE could do with this data it is simply a meaningless metric.

Clear. I clarified this in another mail today, as an example how I think it could work ...

...

It isnt that bad, if you will get reports, that are more standarized.

There is an IETF working group on Messaging Abuse Reporting Format, I am not involved in it and not aware of its status, this proposal would not achieve standardisation.

Somebody just posted a link, thnx for that ! Will include that in the next version of the draft, including all valuable feedback I collected so far. Kind regards, Frank -- 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 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de