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] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Fri Jan 19 15:49:39 CET 2018
Well, let's be smart: You can only click in those that belong to RIPE. Look at the other way around: When I submit abuse reports (which means an extra cost for me, even if the one that causes the problem is giving the business to you), sometimes I get an automated response email that ask me for clicking a link, or filling a report, and then getting a confirmation email and clicking a link again, or a combination of some of those ... So, should I also avoid clicking the links and go to the courts to ask for the damages that your customer is creating to me? Let's be fair, the cost and possible damages, of customers that abuse third party networks using your infrastructure, need to be covered by them (or you as the provider) not by the folks being attacked. Or you will tell me that a court will tell me that the thief damaged my door because I keep it close, and I must pay for repairing the door, instead of the thief and those that cooperated with him in the attack? Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com> Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 15:19 Para: "anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation) I have to agree with Wolfgang here ... If any of our helpdesk engineers would click on a link or attachment in what we receive on the abuse-mailbox ... he/she would have to keep restoring the systems due to the massive number of malware that is received in it.. I still think that the best way to validate a current abuse-contact is during the ARC's ... It wouldn't require any additional process nor additional contact moments from the RIPE NCC's point of view to the resource holders. Regards, Erik Bais ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]