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/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] Introducing the RIPE NCC Report Form
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Introducing the RIPE NCC Report Form
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] {Disarmed} Re: Introducing the RIPE NCC Report Form
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Sat Apr 7 03:42:52 CEST 2012
i agree. RIPE NCC shouldnt be trying to make it this hard to report things to them RIPE should be relying on its LIRs to reach out to customers with incomplete whois records, and possibly also collecting information on how many allocations with totally fake addresses (maildrops, empty lots) are made by a single LIR. Especially for /17 and larger, or /16 and larger netblocks. And also, a closer look at netblocks assigned to entities that are outside the normal geographical area that ripe serves. like 95.130.120.0/21registered to some entity apparently in Panama --srs On Saturday, April 7, 2012, Joe St Sauver wrote: > Florian commented: > > #I looked at "Incorrect contact information in the RIPE Database", and > #"I confirm that I have reported the incorrect information to all of > #the contacts listed in the relevant object" is a required checkbox. > # > #This seems to require that complainants try postal addresses, phone > #and fax numbers before reporting errors in email addresses. Is this > #really your goal? Isn't this a step backwards? > > I agree. > > >From my POV, each data element should be treated independently. The > existence of a valid FAX number, for example, should not offset or > eliminate the importance (or the reportability) of working to correct > an invalid/non-deliverable email address. > > Similarly, having found an invalid field in the whois, the reporter's > "responsibility" should be considered discharged upon their identifying > and reporting that data to RIPE. They should not be expected to exhaust > all potential contact methods, or to make multiple attempts to the > broken contact channel, or to hypothetically attempt to visit the > listed address in person, :-), just in order to be eligible to report > a problem with data of record. > > The goal should be correcting potentially bad data, not making it hard > to report bad data or shifting work back upon public spirited community > volunteers. > > Regards, > > Joe > > -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20120407/e92eaf92/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Introducing the RIPE NCC Report Form
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] {Disarmed} Re: Introducing the RIPE NCC Report Form
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]