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

HI Tobias and others

As requested we will prepare a document on a technical implementation,
as discussed by the Task Force, for your proposed policy. We expect to
be able to publish this tomorrow.

Regards
Denis Walker
Business Analyst
RIPE NCC Database Group

On 29/11/11:49 12:54 PM, Tobias Knecht wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>> In my opinion it does not make any sense to include implementation 
>>> details into an policy. Two reasons for that. Nobody cares about
>>> the implementation details in 10 years when things are in place.
>>> This would pollute the policy. And second, what happens if another
>>> proposal coming up in 5 years changes the whole design of
>>> database?
>>
>> I am aware of that. I think It would be fine for everyone, if the
>> proposal contains a reference to a document which defines this.
> 
> I already asked RIPE NCC folks to join the discussion and come up with
> the implementation details and the operational details on how things are
> handled if data is inaccurate.
> 
>>> I do not want to mix up the fact of going to London (introducing
>>> the abuse-c) with the fact on how to go to London (how to implement
>>> things).
>>
>> Yet, it should be defined to make sure everybody _is_ in London on
>> Dec. 10.
> 
> I guess we agree on that. ;-) Additional paper would make sense.
> 
>>> I'm against every team/member/robot should figure that out
>>> themselves.
>>
>> So you are proposing a kind of "one-size-fits-all" on how to process
>> data internally. I am curious if this works.
> 
> We are talking about formats that are intended to be machine readable
> (arf, xarf, IODEF). Every single of the todays official formats can be
> parsed full automatic. Even not "official" formats like spamcop or
> others can be parsed automatically. Things that can not be parsed
> automatically can be forwarded to an internal mailbox and can be
> manually reviewed. My experience tells me that more than 98% of the
> incoming reports are within the top 10 fully automatic parsable formats
> and only 2% of the incoming traffic has to be reviews manually.
> 
> This whole routing process takes less than an hour to be implemented in
> procmail.
> 
> But that would go to far into another interesting discussion. If you are
> interested in that we can go on off list.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tobias
>