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] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
michele at blacknight.ie
Fri Jul 23 15:51:08 CEST 2010
On 23 Jul 2010, at 14:43, Richard Cox wrote: > > > My personal thinking goes something like this: Any entity which holds > either an ASN, or an IP address range obtained DIRECTLY from RIPE or > from an LIR, should be required by policy to provision an abuse mailbox; > we should also recommend that such an abuse mailbox be in the form of a > role account rather than an individual's mailbox. The same policy could > also be applied to any sub-assignment greater than /25 (IPv4) or larger > (and a similar figure should be chosen for IPv6 address blocks). > That abuse mailbox should be included in all RIPE data elements, no > matter how they are delivered. That makes a lot of sense We encourage our clients to have their own abuse contacts, as it saves everyone time and energy. It would be good if there was some form of policy or even a suggest best practice .. > > There is another strategy, which I have suggested before, which is that > abuse (and possibly other contact) mailboxes would not be at the domain > of the resource-holder, but in a special form "xxxxxxxxx at abuse.ripe.net" > where "xxxxxxxxx" is an encrypted string pointing to the real mailbox and > that string would actually change every (N) days, so that there would be > no value in spammers harvesting such addresses. Mail to those addresses > would be forwarded by the RIPE mailserver, with a re-written Return-Path > etc so that a bounce would never go directly to the sender but instead > come to the RIPE server where it would pass through a filter taking out > the personal data. If mail to such an address did bounce in any quantity > that could alert the RIPE analysts to the possibility that the resource > was no longer in use, or that the resource holder no longer existed. > > That's a simplified description of a more-detailed spec which I worked > out a while back, and something similar is currently in successful use > by several domain registrars. So that proves it's not rocket-science! As a registrar I'd be interested in learning more ! > > -- > Richard Cox > RDGC1-RIPE > Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]