[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

On 25/09/2017 14:26, herve.clement at orange.com wrote:
> With regard to your first scenario, the auto-answer you mention can be
> considered as a valid reply, and the "support service" would help to
> proceed with the abuse report.

Hervé,

Thank you for your reply.

If an autoresponder directing the enquirer to go read a FAQ, and
possibly submit a web ticket, is deemed compliant with this policy it
seems unlikely to do much harm, albeit equally unlikely to do anything
terribly useful.

I still think Gregory's/Europol's needs would be better addressed by
asking the NCC to provide a simple visualisation tool for the BGP
routing table that enabled investigators to easily discover for a given
network that was targetted for investigation which other network was
providing the transit.

I strongly suspect that for most of the suspect networks Europol has
difficulty pinning down there is a very small number (maybe even only
one) much larger, more reputable, and more easily found located network
operator who would also be much more willing to be cooperative - and the
only thing standing in the way of Europol making such an approach is
difficulty in inspecting routing and visualising these relationships.
That may not provide a perfect solutions in all cases, but neither will
asking the NCC to validate data submitted by a small number of
organisations that wish to conceal/lie about their data, hiding in
amongst a large number of organisations that fail to maintain their data
for less nefarious reasons.


Malcolm.


-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA