[anti-abuse-wg] abuse email address validation - VOTE

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> so we can address the dumb and careless type of isp this way, but there are usually multiple different channels to reach out to those
>
> the truly criminal netblock owners are a far greater problem dont you think?

Absolutly true, this will not get the bad guys, but NCC could easily
eliminate mistakes that were done by accident.

Or do you think, that Kabeldeutschland (AS31334) is using a domain
for his abuse email address, that they owned once, but dont own
anymore and that they did not correct this on purpose ?

I think its a good and easy and cheap start for a validation, so why
not correting whats possible ?

I still like to have more votes.


Kind regards, Frank

>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 14-Apr-2012, at 19:37, Frank Gadegast<ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de>  wrote:
>
>> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>> in which case we are wasting time
>>
>> not at all.
>>
>> its true that RIPE NCC neither has the staff nor the mandate
>> to validate objects. RIPE NCC will always tell the complainant
>> to try contacting the abuser and will never do anything else,
>> simply because they dont have to (thats why all those forms
>> are pretty useless).
>>
>> SO the question is, if the community wants the NCC to make more.
>>
>> There are little things the NCC could do and wont need extra staff,
>> simple checks could be programmed and automated, like:
>> (ordered from very simple to more complicated)
>>
>> - check if there is any email address for every object
>>   (my preferred ISP is surely telecomitalia.it or
>>   all those lovely ERX allocations we constantly get spam
>>   from, the only email address you can find is the one
>>   in the changed-by field)
>> - validate the syntax of the abuse email address
>>   (like: abuse at ti.ru.only I always fall over)
>> - check the domain, MX or A record of the domain
>>   (like the ones from online.kz, lovely :o)
>> - check the availablity of those mailservers
>>   (my favorite is currently airtel.in, wich have
>>    severe internal problems, but thats not RIPE, ok)
>>
>> this will:
>> - make the ISPs more aware of the problem
>> - make them check their objects more regulary
>> - kick out the entries that are really stupid
>>
>> I would call these basic validation checks, there
>> are simple to implementent and do not cost anything.
>>
>> So: does the community want that to be implemented ?
>> And: what could be done to fix those ?
>>      RIPE NCC has internal email addresses to contact
>>      there members, so a request to fix objects
>>      could be mail to those ...
>>
>> Furthermore the NCC could
>> - send testmails to the email address and
>>   evaluate the return mails
>> - send emails including a link to click
>>
>> More complicated, will probably cost something and
>> will stress all members.
>>
>> So: does the community want those two to be implemented ?
>>
>>
>> Kind regards, Frank
>>
>>> and effort having this discussion, and regulatory compliance is probably the only thing that will produce a viable course of action
>>>
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>
>>> On 14-Apr-2012, at 17:59, Karl-Josef Ziegler<kjz at gmx.net>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>>> The different pieces of contact information are all potential ways to
>>>>> get in touch with the Internet number resource holder. If you have
>>>>> difficulties reaching them via any of those details, you can report this
>>>>> to us. I would recommend making a reasonable attempt to contact them
>>>>> first though, for example by giving them a phone call if you find that
>>>>> their email addresses are no longer working.
>>>>
>>>> My experience: I've used the form because the email contacts from a
>>>> provider in Romania were invalid. The phone contact given in the RIPE
>>>> database was only a mobile phone number in Romania. I searched for this
>>>> number in the web and only get a few results which all directed to the
>>>> entry in the RIPE database. So it seems that this (prepaid?) phone was
>>>> only used to register this IP space with RIPE.
>>>>
>>>> My claim was denied because I didn't made an attempt to contact the
>>>> provider on mobile phone in Romania. I didn't contact them because I
>>>> don't speak Romanian and I feared retaliation from possible criminals in
>>>> Romania. So for an individual it may be very difficult to fulfill all
>>>> the external requirements which are made by RIPE NCC. And, of course,
>>>> RIPE may be in a better position to repel retaliations.
>>>>
>>>> RIPE NCC wrote back that they don't have the staff to check if the
>>>> entries in the database are correct. So if RIPE will guarantee the
>>>> validity of the database today they seem not to have the personal
>>>> capacity for research.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> - Karl-Josef Ziegler
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
>> --
>> 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
>> ======================================================================
>>
>
>


-- 

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
--
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
======================================================================