[anti-abuse-wg] {Disarmed} Re: Introducing the RIPE NCC Report Form

Suresh

Just because an entity isn't based in the EU / RIPE region doesn't mean that they are up to no good or that they don't have a valid reason to have an allocation

We have clients from over 120 countries and obviously a lot of those countries are outside the RIPE region.

Assuming that my non-RIPE region clients are up to no good is a dangerous assumption. It also assumes that those from within the RIPE region are "kosher".

I would agree with you, however, that reporting potential issues should be made as easy as possible.

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
________________________________
From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net [anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.lists at gmail.com]
Sent: 07 April 2012 02:42
To: Joe St Sauver
Cc: fw at deneb.enyo.de; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: {Disarmed} Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Introducing the RIPE NCC Report Form

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 MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "95.130.120.0" claiming to be 95.130.120.0/21<http://95.130.120.0/21> registered 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<mailto:ops.lists at gmail.com>)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20120410/94c0ad48/attachment.html>