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

Hi Denis,

thank you very much! Looking forward the document.

Thanks,

Tobias

-- 
abusix


Am 29.11.11 16:35, schrieb Denis Walker:
> 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
>>


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20111129/f94ffe82/attachment.sig>