[anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)

chrish at consol.net wrote:
> Hi!

Hi,

>
> [...]
>> but business rules will require it to be
> [...]
>
> I didn't find any "business rules" document at RIPE.
>
>> From the thread I understand that the intention is to make the abuse-c an actually mandatory attribute, at the same time kind of removing the e-mail attribute and making the abuse-mailbox by definition a bulk target.
>
> Now I have to think about a crowd of real persons with a ripe handle, referenced as admin-c for their objects. They would have to add an abuse-c (or otherwise somebody will try to take their resources away from them!?), i.e. they will usually just add their e-mail there once more (if they don't have an abuse-mailbox attribute yet - probably because they don't need it because the value in the e-mail is perfectly what they want to communicate for this purpose as well) - while this email was made a bulk target by definition (in which case they probably even preferred to remove the abuse-mailbox if they had one in favour of their e-mail attribute - which would just be made impossible by the proposal), and at the same time their e-mail would be made unusable.
> One hell of a vision you got there, I'd say... ;)

Usally people have different mailboxes or mail addresses for different
purposes.
The proposal even helps here a lot to seperate personal email addresses
from abuse email addresses, simply because the abuse-c has to be
defined now.
So, everybody thats has to complain simply knows now who to contact
and will nevermore bother somebodys personal email address like
the email named in the admin-c (see an example below).

> [though not explicitly stated, the following seems to be meant as justification of the proposal]
>> Currently within the RIPE NCC service region, it is not clear whether to use the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute, the "remark:" attribute or an irt object. And since the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute can be added to various role objects, it is not clear in which of these role objects it should be preferred.
>
> When I read that I assumed it had to mean that it is proposed to drop "abuse-mailbox", "remark" and the irt object.
> Later in the thread I had to find out that it isn't.
> In case the mentioned attributes/objects are really to be dropped in favour of the single new attribute, I might see a benefit in simplifying things. I don't say yet that this justifies a policy change, but at least there would be some sort of point in it...
> The implementation document kind of summarizes this aspect quite drastically, too. It describes the goal of 'going back to basics', 'avoiding complexity' in quite some length, and concludes in adding several attributes, objects, and quite some mainly undefined policy stuff while removing nothing at all.

The other places will fanish just in the moment the abuse-c is
introduced, simply because because every resource owner has
to re-think, how a complaint should reach him.
If the resource owner does not like any confusion, he will
have to remove abuse contacts from the remark section.

> In short I can't see any benefit from this proposal. It doesn't simplify things, it makes things (including finding abuse contact information) more complicated and for a huge part of the community it introduces severe problems. We're better off as it is now. The "Arguments supporting the proposal" are in my eyes simply unsustainable.
> Another cue regarding the possible aim I found was: "The outcome is, to have an abuse-c in place. That is all." Well, that's not true as discussed above, there are major problematic implications, and on the other side, simply to have another attribute doesn't seem like a valid justification to me. I mean, it's not "to have an abuse-mailbox", which would bear some sort of sense in itself in my eyes - while of course this has been done already.
> Actually I do not even see the motivation for an 'abuse industry' to lobby this at all!?
>
> But I don't think that this kind of policy should be following particulate interest but should be universal anyway. Like this:
> - a resource has an administrative contact (complaints - whether abuse or not - are administrative issues)
> - a contact can have an explicit address for abuse reports. In case the contact chose to not have/want/need a special abuse address, there are still the canonical addresses for this contact.
> This is what we have, and while there might be problems somewhere that should or could be addressed, I don't see the problem the 2011-6 proposal fixes (or actually even formally addresses)!?
> If you want to force every resource holder to have and publish an email that is explicitly meant to be bulk-spammed, you should propose exactly this (i.e. making an abuse-mailbox mandatory for the admin-c and announcing it as proper use to bulk spam these addresses). As a victim of this I'd ofc still be very much against this. And once again, I'm really wondering what the businesscase might be to motivate such a situation...
>
> Making the abuse-c attribute actually mandatory as described, imho is a very very bad idea for the reason given above. Effectively removing the e-mail attribute imho is too, though probably sligthly less important than the previous issue.
>
> Well, at least time to update the "Arguments opposing" paragraph, I'd say... (dropping the proposal wouldn't be wrong either, I'd say)


I understand that you will like to drop this proposal.
Its the usual reaction from somebody who likes to hide his personal
responsibility:

A whois on consol.net reveales:

domain:       consol.net
owner:        n/a
organization: ConSol* GmbH

contact-hdl:  CNET-520629
person:       n/a
organization: ConSol* GmbH

So thats a german company without a CEO/Geschaeftsfuehrer ?
Well you can do something like this with a .net domain, but at least
the DENIC whois reveals an admin-c here:

Name:  	Michael Elbel
Organisation: 	ConSol* GmbH
Adresse: 	Franziskanerstr. 38
PLZ: 	81669
Ort: 	München
Land: 	DE

and your netblock wich has your mailserver shows

inetnum:         194.246.122.0 - 194.246.123.255
netname:         CONSOL-NET
descr:           ConSol Consulting & Solutions Software GmbH
country:         DE
admin-c:         ME7
tech-c:          NOG1-RIPE
status:          ASSIGNED PI
org:             ORG-CCSS3-RIPE
mnt-by:          RIPE-NCC-END-MNT
mnt-lower:       RIPE-NCC-END-MNT
mnt-by:          CONSOL-MNT
mnt-routes:      CONSOL-MNT
mnt-domains:     CONSOL-MNT
source:          RIPE # Filtered

organisation:    ORG-CCSS3-RIPE
org-name:        ConSol Consulting & Solutions Software GmbH
org-type:        LIR
address:         ConSol Consulting & Solutions Software GmbH 
Franziskanerstr. 38 81669 Muenchen Germany
phone:           +498945841100
fax-no:          +498945841111
e-mail:          ripeadm at consol.de
mnt-ref:         CONSOL-MNT
mnt-ref:         RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
mnt-by:          RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
admin-c:         ME7
source:          RIPE # Filtered

role:         Network Operating Group
address:      ConSol* GmbH
address:      Franziskanerstrasse 38
address:      Muenchen, BY D-81669
phone:        +49 89 45841-100
fax-no:       +49 89 45841-111
e-mail:       nog at consol.de
admin-c:      ME7
tech-c:       ME7
nic-hdl:      NOG1-RIPE
mnt-by:       DENIC-P
source:       RIPE # Filtered

person:       Michael Elbel
address:      ConSol* GmbH
address:      Franziskanerstrasse 38
address:      D-81669 Muenchen
address:      Germany
phone:        +49 89 45841 256
fax-no:       +49 89 45841 111
e-mail:       me at freebsd.org
nic-hdl:      ME7
mnt-by:       DENIC-P
source:       RIPE # Filtered


hm, no abuse contact in the remarks, no abuse-mailbox, no nothing ...
And a personal email address, thats obviously not related to
your company (mabye simple because a lot of spam and wrong
complains is arriving there).

So ... you can be lucky, you will not have to remove or change
any object or contact, because you already have none.
You will simply insert the abuse-c and than you can
even set the official email address of Michael Elbel in the
ME7 contact.

And looking on www.consol.de you should be able to insert
abuse at consol.net with a working ticket system behind ...

You should really support the proposal, it will help you a lot.


Kind regards, Frank


> Regards,
>
> 	Chris
>
>
BTW: also very cool is to visit www.consol.net (the next step,
if somebody likes to report abuse) ...


PHADE Software - PowerWeb                       http://www.powerweb.de
Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast             mailto:frank at powerweb.de
Schinkelstrasse 17                                fon: +49 33200 52920
14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany             fax: +49 33200 52921
======================================================================