This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Bradley Freeman
bradley.freeman at csirt.ja.net
Fri Apr 9 12:44:45 CEST 2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This thread is getting long so I have only commented on a few of your main points. > 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. > > 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? > - IRT objects makes it even more complicated I simply disagree, IRT objects simplify the whois and provide a clear contact email. > - 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. > 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. Cheers Bradley -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 10.0.0 Charset: us-ascii wsBVAwUBS78FHjR8IIjdC+5SAQLc3Qf/cDL8MIlnVIUXJpWFb/M21TGYloZpp8DJ IlXMs4ITrhW3RMkSb1jS81h2uEtw3SY8DkA7qsQt8Pp5mbEOZcJaKoM4taIyc1iY 27Iuc/TOVPgTs6D6vYgnjDkCn5mZE8yccGcDDZ2++WDLssVsD4zhSqFa2d3SdeWm 3/i9bTLd5rWTRfDOiAkw2heJbIaP1w4tQOW8yBqEAqGLP7zba3Mekog+VvweXv9B kDXL9I7GkjgSXgaxRWYLBjOyoR4G4Xni5qU13bjizhQjj2rvQpgMnvylJ37xJftH EMR9FVays48orPYtlwb7L8A0Z58aqi8iVuwo+99pFq+U90IDEAVnzw== =2ypS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]