[anti-abuse-wg] central whois

Hi Suresh and list,

Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com> writes:

> This is one of those one in a million type occurences ..

so when Frank reasons that he doesn't want *any* spam to reach his
customers, that's ok, but when I reason that making certain information
too readily available to end users may increase the likelyhood some way
more serious incidents it's a "one in a million type occurrence"?
Sorry, I can't follow that reasoning.

> and given that your company is a listed one - so that contact
> information is available in a multitude of other places, that same
> death threat would probably have been phoned in to your office
> receptionist instead of your colleague, from whoever was crazy enough
> to make it.

What do you mean "would probably have"? It *has* been sent by e-mail.
And as far as "crazy" goes: Being "crazy" doesn't make someone harmless.

> That does not sound like any kind of argument to do what you ask for
> .. and making it hard will simply add to the already extremely high
> quantum of abuse issues in the RIPE area.

Have you actually read beyond the first paragraph of my posting?  A
few weeks ago a (kind of) colleague -- more of a developer -- who had
detected rather persistent attacks against a customer's SIP server had
his mails to abuse-c systematically ignored.  When he resorted to legal
means he was told "nobody here bothers to read those mails anyway" by
the attacker's ISP.

Please explain to me why providing an excessively easy-to-use abuse
interface won't cause such an increase in workload for the recipients of
that list that it becomes impossible to handle.


Cheers,

    Benedikt

-- 
			 Business Grade IPv6
		    Consulting, Training, Projects

Benedikt Stockebrand, Dipl.-Inform.        http://www.stepladder-it.com/