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] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Frank Gadegast
ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de
Tue Apr 17 10:48:22 CEST 2012
Brian Nisbet wrote: > Leo, Hi Brian, > Is it abuse contact management, is it data verification? Part of the > problem that we hit with the ACM-TF is that data verification is a very > big thing Well, technical is very easy, implementation of the test took only about 1 hours here, and you can test the email addresses from all objects at RIPE in (estimated) one day, so a weekly check is no problem at all. Does not even take high resources. > and people have a lot of reactions to it. Could you explain what problems you see here with reactions ? We did the following two days ago: - we checked all email addresses from inetnum objects from the RIPE region we did send an abuse report to during 2011/12 for syntax, domain, MX and A record and mailserver availability - about 50.000 different email addresses - took about 8 hours - nearly no extra CPU load on a quite old server that does at lot of other things - found 6% to be not valid (mostly because they simply changed) - re-read the inetnum objects via whois - validated them again The tests left us with about 1,5% of technical wrong contact addresses. This is NOT counting objects that have no email address at all (thats a different task, but surely will disappear when the abuse-c is in place). Do you think that the LIRs would complain, if the NCC asks the maintainer with an automatic email to updated his or her objects ? Cannot imagine it, because they DID supply an email address, its simply wrong (old, forgotten or typing mistake or deliberatly wrong). Well, we surely found some that are deliberatly wrong (funny things like xxx at xxx.xx), what just reminds me, that another test should be, if the TLD is valid ;o) Kind regards, Frank > > Thanks, > > Brian. > > > -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- MOTD: "have you enabled SSL on a website or mailbox today ?" -- 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 ======================================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]