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/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[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] abuse email address validation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tobias Knecht
tk at abusix.com
Tue Apr 17 15:25:15 CEST 2012
On 17.04.12 11:42, Denis Walker wrote: > On 17/04/12:17 11:04 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: >> Denis >> >> I assume RIPE is able to get paid by all members, so it must have >> some valid contact details or no bills would be sent or money >> received? > > You are assuming that all data in the RIPE Database is either > maintained by the RIPE NCC (registry data) or by members. This is not > the case. A member can, for example, make a sub-allocation to another > organisation that the RIPE NCC has no contract with and probably no > direct email contact with. That sub-allocation can be further > sub-allocated and then there may be assignments made where the > assignment holder has the mnt-by authority over the assignment. > However many layers, there is of course a chain of authority leading > back to the LIR who has responsibility for their allocated address > space. But it is not always as simple as the RIPE NCC emails a member > and asks them to 'fix it'. I think we should look for a solution that covers the chain of authority. Maybe a first step can be to cover the maintainers email addresses and go from there. As soon as we have the maintainers we could cover everything beyond and notify maintainers if something is going wrong within their reliability. This should also cover the mechanisms that will be used for checking. For example I think it is absolutely okay to send verification mails to the maintainers, but I'm not sure we should use a verification process on all the email addresses. This could first of all lead into legal issues and end up in accusing RIPE NCC as spammers when people with no direct legal connection to RIPE NCC receiving "spam" and need to verify their email address. 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/20120417/c3455222/attachment.sig>
- 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] abuse email address validation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]