Hi Andrey,
While it looks, in a first sight, a very good idea, if a neighbor ASN fails to
do the filtering (for whatever reason, not necessarily on purpose), should we
not just “punish” that one, but also next one and so on ?
Regards,
Jordi
De: anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Andrey
Hi Daniel,
Responses below, in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Daniel Suchy
Fecha: martes, 19 de marzo de 2019, 14:15
Para:
Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [routing-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP
Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation) to
tal or not) could not be declared as “on purpose”.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 4:14 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
Hi Andrey,
While it looks, in a first sight, a very good idea, if a neighbor ASN fails to
do the filtering (for whatever reason, not necessarily on purpose), shou
Hi Hank,
El 20/3/19 8:53, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Hank Nussbacher"
escribió:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:06:11AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, Marco Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> More or les
Hi Hank,
El 20/3/19 9:15, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Hank Nussbacher"
escribió:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 09:53:02AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>>> So that's a fairly effective way to sanction abusive behaviour.
Hi Brian,
I'm fine moving that thread to NCC Services and I know how complex that will be.
So, repeating my question to all the participants here:
Can we agree at least that we should not have text regarding that in the policy
proposal under discussion (also considering Brian input)?
I hope e
Hi Furio,
If we can find a non-contentious way to word it, I will be in favor of this.
Note that in order to speed-up the conversation, the co-authors are not
coordinating responses, so I mean we don't necessarily agree, but this is part
of the fun of this discussion!
Regards,
Jordi
El 2
I agree that we could find a way to refine the text to include also the ASN
hijacks.
Regards,
Jordi
El 20/3/19 12:10, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Richard Clayton"
escribió:
In message ,
Carlos Friaças writes
>The misuse of AS numbers was not seen (maybe until now...) as
Hi Ricardo,
I've the feeling that if you're attacked, you will have some forensic info
about that, or at least you will need to place a claim to authorities to probe
it and try to minimize your responsibilities, like in the case of GDPR breach,
etc..
In fact, if you haven't realized it and sti
Definitively, authors will try to draft something for that, but specific text
suggestions to the list are always very welcome ! (actually … please do so)
At the moment I can think in the line:
“Direct peers allowing the hijack thru their networks will be warned the first
time, but may be
Hi Sascha,
El 20/3/19 15:14, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Sascha Luck [ml]"
escribió:
All,
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 01:41:22PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
>A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-03, "BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy
Violation", is now available for discussion.
>
Hi Sascha,
El 20/3/19 16:09, "Sascha Luck [ml]" escribió:
Hi Jordi,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 03:45:24PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>Service Agreement. This I consider harmful to the standing of
>the RIPE NCC as an impartia
Sorry a bit congested with work overload since yesterday (I will try to respond
to other emails later/tomrorow, but this one caught my attention).
I've the feeling that Piotr is looking for a much shorter time frame, and I
think I will agree.
I'm not ever sure if this is related to Retroactivit
Top posting to make it short.
Not sure to understand "with teeth" (and google didn't helped). Please
understand that there is a lot of people who is not native English, so this
kind of expressions make it difficult to catch everything.
While, I basically agree with Carlos, have some additional
Hi Erik,
Using > because for some reason this email is not being automatically
"quoted" correctly in my email client.
Regards,
Jordi
El 21/3/19 23:54, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Erik Bais"
escribió:
Dear WG,
I've read the proposal and the discussion that has been po
Hi Sascha,
El 22/3/19 12:07, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Sascha Luck [ml]"
escribió:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:12:02PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>3) We may need to refine the text, but the suspected hijacker, in case of
sponsored reso
deliberated hijacks cases“
Regards,
Jordi
El 22/3/19 12:19, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Carlos Friaças via
anti-abuse-wg" escribió:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:12:02PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
&g
Hi Töma,
It has been already proposed/discussed in every RIR, which appropriate changes,
and in some cases, there is a need for editorial review, etc., so not sure
when it will be published at each one (LACNIC probably the first, ARIN next,
and so on), and we already considered some of the iss
there are other differences (other policies affected,
service agreements, membership by-laws, etc.), even cultural differences, etc.
Regards,
Jordi
El 22/3/19 17:33, "Töma Gavrichenkov" escribió:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:24 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote
Hi Nick,
El 22/3/19 18:13, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Nick Hilliard"
escribió:
The aim of the 2019-03 proposal, as far as I understand it, is to grant the
RIPE NCC the authority to make formal judgements about alleged abuse of network
resources with the implicit intention that unles
In my country, and I'm sure in many others, if the police (either individual
members or as an authority) or anyone, even if he is a judge, from the
government, is doing illegal actions, spying, including taking control of
persons or organization computers/networks, etc., will be judged and jaile
Exactly!
If customers, employees, visitors, students, etc., are misusing the network
(for example using it for spam, DDoS, child pornography, etc.), they are
typically acting against the contract arrangements (AUP). If you've a bad
contract that's a different problem, but even in that case, I'm
Hi Lu,
El 23/3/19 11:30, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Lu Heng"
escribió:
When you stealing electricity the electricity company will not cut your
electricity at home but report you to the policy.
Depends on the contract. In my country, they are able to do, even at the same
time all th
Hi Lu,
El 23/3/19 11:04, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Lu Heng"
escribió:
Nick are making good point.
How about murder is a policy violation?
How about rape is a policy violation?
If you have in your contract an AUP that prohibits illegal activities (DDoS,
spam, child pornography,
El 23/3/19 11:39, "Lu Heng" escribió:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:35 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
Hi Lu,
El 23/3/19 11:30, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Lu Heng"
escribió:
When you stealing electricity the electricity company will not cut
El 23/3/19 12:17, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Gert Doering"
escribió:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 12:27:32PM +0200, ac wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:04:22 +0800
> Lu Heng wrote:
> >
> > It???s very much like electricity company tell you if you do something
.
It was mention because the case of one of those craft beer producers that got
50% of their shares acquired. Courts of course, respected the decision.
Regards,
Jordi
El 23/3/19 12:22, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg" escribió:
El 23/
El 23/3/19 12:05, "Lu Heng" escribió:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:58 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
El 23/3/19 11:39, "Lu Heng" escribió:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:35 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
Hi Lu,
El
El 23/3/19 12:13, "Lu Heng" escribió:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 19:05 Lu Heng wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:58 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
El 23/3/19 11:39, "Lu Heng" escribió:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:35 JORDI PAL
Hi Nick,
El 23/3/19 12:32, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 22/03/2019 22:55:
> The legal bindings of the NCC already have that for those that don’t
> follow existing policies, don’t pay bills, etc. So, the proposal is
at, Mar 23, 2019 at 19:37 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
wrote:
El 23/3/19 12:13, "Lu Heng" escribió:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 19:05 Lu Heng wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 18:58 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
El 23/3/19 11:39, "Lu Heng" escr
El 23/3/19 12:46, "Sascha Luck [ml]" escribió:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 12:29:21PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>I learnt that there is an association for craft beer producers and one of
the rules was that if you have a sharing from an industrial
Hi Töma,
El 23/3/19 13:25, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Töma Gavrichenkov"
escribió:
Hi all,
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-03, "BGP Hijacking is
> a RIPE Policy Violation", is now available for discussion.
Sorry if the issues I'm raising were already addressed so
Fat fingers:
Our intent is NOT to "stop" the attack with the claim (not efficient at all),
but to allow to be reviewed in order to avoid it, in the future, if possible
from the same actors.
Regards,
Jordi
El 23/3/19 13:44, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
El 23/3/19 16:49, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 23/03/2019 11:52:
> El 23/3/19 12:32, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
> 1. it's not the job of the RIPE NCC to make up for a short-fall of
civil
>
El 23/3/19 22:33, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette"
escribió:
In message
=?UTF-8?Q?T=C3=B6ma_Gavrichenkov?= wrote:
>2. OTOH the ultimate result (membership cancellation) may be seen as a
>very heavy punishment.
Did you have some particular
El 23/3/19 23:40, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette"
escribió:
In message <6179dc11-f299-c076-0ae1-2f2d22eb6...@foobar.org>,
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>If there were legislation and enforcement in this area, we wouldn't be
>having this conversation.
Hi Sergey,
I think this is a completely different discussion and up to the chairs the PDP
decision process, as we all know.
However, I want to point out, that from my perspective, supporting voices are
perfectly valid, regardless of pointing out their motivations or not. This is
my take
If you want to have an idea of "what" we have captured during the discussion in
this mailing list, we have also submitted the "improved" version to ARIN (and
working on the same for APNIC and AfriNIC).
You can read that (in English) here:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2019/AR
My personal view on this (not as a co-author now), and sorry to make it long,
but I guess is important and many new people contributing in the list that we
never heard about before and I hope this helps many people, as a frequent
participant and contributor to discussions.
I know very well the
As said in my previous email, if we take that strictly, then we will never have
any IETF document or RIRs policy proposals reaching consensus. When I agree and
will not provide any "extra" for that was has been already said (because the
policy text or previous emails), I just do +1.
Or do you t
El 3/4/19 15:05, "Sascha Luck [ml]" escribió:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 01:18:10PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>"Lack of disagreement is more important than agreement" I read that as
those opposing should explain why and provide inp
El 18/4/19 9:15, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg"
escribió:
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:39 AM Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
> wrote:
>> And how will a dutch court de
Reading the article in a minute !
However, as an information pointer I've some data ...
I've an VM with asterisk at home, and every day I've to ban (I use fail2ban to
do it automatically after 3 failed attempts from the same IP), average about 20
IPs attempting to use my SIP service to my provi
escribió:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:06:39 +0200
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> Reading the article in a minute !
> However, as an information pointer I've some data ...
> I've an VM with asterisk at home, and every day I've to ban (I use
Hi all,
To avoid unnecessary noise in the list, I think we should handle this in pvt.
At the moment, I've got emails from Andre, Angel and Jan about this.
I will try to work during this weekend in investigating if there is already an
IETF WG that may be a fit for this work, or alternatively wil
Hi Angel,
Thanks a lot for the inputs, see below in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
El 16/5/19 16:36, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ángel González Berdasco"
escribió:
Marco Schmidt writes:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of "abuse-mailbox"",
Hi Nick,
As it has been observed several times, the actual validation system is
extremely weak and very easy to avoid, so 99% useless.
If I put in my abuse-c your email (just an example). The validation will pass,
and you will never notice that I've used your email to fake the system.
So, clea
My email client doesn't allow me to do it in a different way (Outlook for Mac).
If somebody is able to help, I'm happy. I can't change my client, for different
and long to explain business reasons.
Anyway, this is a curious thing ... last week I was asked in the LACNIC meeting
policy session to
Internet is global, so local customs are from the "Internet planet".
El 17/5/19 12:16, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:13:12PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Anyway, this is a curious thing ... last week I was asked in the LACNIC
meeting policy s
El 18/5/19 9:56, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Gert Doering"
escribió:
Hi,
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:02:48AM +0100, Carlos Friaças wrote:
> > There is no indication that the complications Jordi is proposing are
> > an actual improvement in any metric, except "human life ti
El 18/5/19 10:35, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 10:28:45AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> So, please state *first* what is wrong or insufficient with the
current
> process, and why these added com
El 17/5/19 10:41, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Carlos Friaças via
anti-abuse-wg" escribió:
Hi All,
I'm not sure about the 6 month period (vs. 12 months), and probably some
details can be improved in further versions, but i do support this
proposal, which is clearly
Hi Alex,
The intent of this policy is to ensure that the validation process is useful,
and that means ensuring that the inbox is working, real (not from somebody
else), monitored for abuse reports (automatically is ok if it really works, but
there must be a way for human participation), and
utomatically
{other specification, maybe with URL}
{api with url}
{'whatever'}
This would be more valuable for the whole global abuse handling process than
the burdensome time waster that is now proposed.
--
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221
On Sat, 18-05-2019 13h 3
Hi Nick,
El 18/5/19 15:38, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 18/05/2019 14:32:
> This will not work.
>
> Allowing every resource holder in the world to use their own form means
> that you need to develop tons
Hi Töma,
El 18/5/19 16:25, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Töma Gavrichenkov"
escribió:
On Thu, May 16, 2019, 11:42 PM Alex de Joode wrote:
It seems you want to verify that a human reads the abuse box.
This is actually a very bright proposal in view of the next generation economy.
El 18/5/19 18:49, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Niall O'Reilly"
escribió:
On 18 May 2019, at 9:38, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> El 18/5/19 10:35, "Gert Doering" escribió:
>
> I have an idea.
>
>
9 at 10:38:46AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> I have an idea.
>
> I will set up a service where everyone can have an e-mail address
which
> will totally follow everything you propose as validation mechanism -
like,
>
s not necessarily linear.
Regards,
Jordi
El 18/5/19 19:07, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 10:43:11AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> My team has nearly sent out 6000 abuse reports (only about intrusion
>
Hi Rich,
El 21/5/19 9:31, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Rich Kulawiec"
escribió:
This is a bad idea and should be abandoned.
The goal is fine: everyone/everything should have a valid abuse@ address
per RFC 2142, decades of best practices, and inherent accountability to
Hi Gert,
El 21/5/19 14:37, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
you cannot know if someone complies with the policy in good faith or not.
And this is exactly the same for any other policies that we have adopted, and
that doesn't preclude us to adopt them, because in any membership organ
El 21/5/19 15:32, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
the whole point of your policy is the underlying assumption that people
are *not* acting in good faith, so why all of a sudden assume they are?
Is in the other way around. If you're acting in good faith, you should not have
a p
Hi Gert,
El 21/5/19 16:07, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
you are comparing the claimed cost savings on the side of the reporters
with the very real extra costs incurred on the side of the abuse handlers.
You can't do that, and come up with a positive result.
The cos
If a single spammer (for example), once in the year, sends 50.000 spams
messages (with is a ridiculous number in a single campaign, and we know that
there are thousands of them every year), the cost for all the *15.000+* LIRs
abuse desks is already compensated vs the cost of the TWO-yearly valid
Hi Tarass,
El 21/5/19 16:18, "Taras Heichenko" escribió:
> On May 21, 2019, at 18:35, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
>
>
>
> El 21/5/19 15:32, "Gert Doering" escribió:
>
>Hi,
>
Hi all,
As v2 of 2019-03 is not yet published, according to the PDP, until the impact
analysis is completed, I've published a diff online at:
https://www.diffchecker.com/Fy6z4VYH
Regards,
Jordi
**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Intern
cullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>
>
> On 23/05/2019, 09:00, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
via anti-abuse-wg" wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
>As v2 of 2019-03 is not yet published, according to the PD
Hi all,
I'm working in a new version of the proposal 2019-04 (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox").
In the last discussion phase, the only detailed response to this proposal that
I got was from Carlos Friacas (which I will respond in detail later-on, as this
may also help to revive the discussion).
Hi Leo,
El 13/1/20 18:16, "Leo Vegoda" escribió:
Hi Jordi, all,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:58 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
Hi all,
I'm working in a new version of the proposal 2019-04 (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox").
In the last d
Hi Ronald,
El 13/1/20 22:34, "Ronald F. Guilmette" escribió:
In message <6afc7d17-bac4-464c-8af8-2ad852d39...@consulintel.es>,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>I'm happy to hear other inputs, stats, data, etc.
Having only just read the proposal, my comments are few:
Hi Randy,
As I just said, ideally we should ask for abuse-c reports to be procesed, but I
know many folks don't like it.
But at least, we need to make sure that if you have an abuse-c, it is a "real"
and "working" one so you're able to actually send the reports there. If
ignored, that's anothe
Hi Leo
El 14/1/20 0:11, "Leo Vegoda" escribió:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:50 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
[...]
> I will love to have in the policy that they must be investigated and
acted upon, but what I heard from the input
Hi Ronald,
El 14/1/20 0:17, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette"
escribió:
In message <55d65bf8-a430-4bdc-ae58-63ff3dca4...@consulintel.es>,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>Section 2.0 bullet point #2. What's wrong with web forms?
>
>If I need to use a
I think if we try to agree on those ratings, we will never reach consensus ...
So it is not just easier to ask the abuse-c mailboxes that don't want to
process to setup an autoresponder with an specific (standard) text about that,
for example:
"This is an automated convirmation that you reached
El 14/1/20 10:47, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:38:28AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:36:10AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> > So it is not just easier to ask the abuse-c mailb
Hi Nick,
Not really, I think you're reading a different text ... I'm not intending to
ask RIPE to verify if the operators resolve the abuse cases.
The point here is to amend the existing policy to do a *good* validation of the
abuse mailbox.
The actual policy only makes a "technical" validatio
This is the key point.
We already agreed to have a mandatory abuse-c.
We can change our mind and make it optional.
But one way or the other, should be a *real* one. A validation that can be
faked just using (for example) Carlos email, is not a good procedure. It
doesn't make sense at all.
We
gt;,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>>Section 3.0 part 3. Why on earth should it take 15 days for
>>anyone to respond to an email?? Things on the Internet happen
>>in millseconds. If a provider is unable to respond to
Hi Ronald,
El 14/1/20 13:10, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette"
escribió:
In message <30174d32-225f-467e-937a-5bc42650f...@consulintel.es>,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>I think if we try to agree on those ratings,
In my opinion, the actual situation is the worst. We are validating over
"nothing". We don't know how many of the "validated" mailboxes are real, or
even read, full, etc.
I will prefer a mandatory abuse-c which is validated in the way I'm proposing,
as it is being done in ARIN and APNIC and soo
Exactly 2 minutes a year (1 minute each time you click the link in the email
from RIPE NCC).
And because you invest 2 minutes a year, you will save a lot of time (many
hours/days) yourself, trying to report abuses to invalid mailboxes!
El 15/1/20 9:24, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Serge Droz
What we do today is not a validation if I can use Gert or Serge or any "null"
email in all my abuse contacts and nobody notice it, and then you start getting
abuse reports from other folks ... This is creating lots of wasted time to both
you and the abuse case reporters.
El 15/1/20 9:59, "an
Hi Leo,
El 15/1/20 18:09, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Leo Vegoda"
escribió:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:16 AM Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
[...]
> - Lastly: It makes our life as Incident responders easier to have a
> uniform way of sending reports, even if
Hi Warren,
When some operators aren't responding to abuse cases, or when they are bouncing
emails, or you get a response from someone telling "sorry I'm not the right
contact for this, the email is mistaken", and many other similar situations ...
the operator is telling you "we don't care about
"Job Snijders" escribió:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:41:54PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> Exactly 2 minutes a year (1 minute each time you click the link in the
> email from RIPE NCC).
>
> And because you invest 2 minutes a year,
Hi Carlos,
El 15/1/20 22:58, "Carlos Friaças" escribió:
Hi,
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> In my opinion, the actual situation is the worst. We are validating over
"nothing". We don
Hi Sara,
While I fully agree with Sergio and yourself, the issue here is that this part
of your text
“Complete, accurate information goes hand in hand with a duty of care, of
promptly taking actions against abuse, and should be accompanied by a social
responsibility of trying to make the
Let’s try to see it from another perspective.
If you’re an electricity provider, and one of your customers injects 1.000 v
into the network and thus create damages to other customers (even from other
electricity providers), the electricity provider must have the means to resolve
the problem,
El 16/1/20 15:25, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette"
escribió:
In message ,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>I'm sure that this is the same in every EU country. Can we agree on that?
Quite certainly not! Doing
Hi Volker,
I don’t agree with that, because:
I believe the electricity sample I provided proves otherwise. My contract is
with the electricity provider (the Internet provider), so I need to complain to
them and they need to follow the chain.
For a victim, to complain directly to the customer
But if the ISP is not reacting at all, he is
risking that other operators block him, right?
That’s why I still believe that abuse-c must be mandatory, unless you clearly
state that you ignore abuse cases.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.01.2020 um 15:52 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg:
Hi Alex,
El 16/1/20 16:30, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alex de Joode"
escribió:
Hi Sara,
The issue with your statement below is that RIPE NCC cannot (legally, under
Dutch contract law) disconnect resources if a resource holder (or more likely
his customer) does not (properly) de
Alex de Joode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode
On Thu, 16-01-2020 15h 18min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
Let’s try to see it from another perspective.
If you’re an electricity provider, and one of your customers injects 1.000 v
into the network and thus cr
under the
criminal system. If the internet is a "wretched hive of scum and villainy" the
powers that be should allocate enough resources to deal with the problem.
--
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode
On Thu, 16-01-2020 17h 17min, JORDI PALE
Hi Richard,
El 16/1/20 21:37, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Richard Clayton"
escribió:
In message , JORDI
PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg writes
>So, if I'm reading it correctly (not being a lawyer), a service provider
not
>acting against a
Hi Denis,
El 17/1/20 0:30, "ripede...@yahoo.co.uk" escribió:
Colleagues
I have just read this whole thread, it took a while (I should get sick more
often and spend a day in bed reading emails). I have a few points to make. Some
are similar to points already raised but I will reinf
I will be fine with this (having RIPE NCC as an intermediator just to send the
abuse report), if instead of a web form (or in addition to it), it is possible
to automate it, for example RIPE NCC also accepts x-arf via email.
RIPE NCC has the obligation to keep the information without disclosing
Hi Michele,
(changing the subject so we can correctly track this and following emails)
The last version is available here:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04
But the goal of this discussion is to understand what the community want, for
making a new version.
I think we
such form would be to advance the
mailbox position in the validation queue.
Finally, IMHO:
On Tue 14/Jan/2020 10:24:42 +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> El 14/1/20 0:11, "Leo Vegoda" escribió:
>
>> It creates hope f
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
