[anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi Sergio, All,

It seems you are proposing a new reputation system, to be managed by the 
RIPE NCC.

If this is the case, you can always try to draft a new policy proposal :-)

Cheers,
Carlos



On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, Sérgio Rocha wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Maybe we can change the approach.
> If RIPE website had a platform to post abuse report, that send the email for
> the abuse contact, it will be possible to evaluate the responsiveness of the
> abuse contact.
>
> This way anyone that report an abuse could assess not only the response but
> also the effectiveness of the actions taken by the network owner. After some
> time with this evaluations we would easy to realize who manages the reports
> and even who does not respond at all.
>
> Sérgio
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of
> Gert Doering
> Sent: 15 de janeiro de 2020 08:06
> To: Carlos Friaças <cfriacas at fccn.pt>
> Cc: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>; anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation
> of "abuse-mailbox")
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 07:23:38AM +0000, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
> wrote:
>> I obviously don't speak for the incident handling community, but i
>> think this (making it optional) would be a serious step back. The
>> current situation is already very bad when in some cases we know from
>> the start that we are sending (automated) messages/notices to blackholes.
>
> So why is it preferrable to send mails which are not acted on, as opposed to
> "not send mail because you know beforehand that the other network is not
> interested"?
>
> I can see that it is frustrating - but I still cannot support a policy
> change which will not help dealing with irresponsible networks in any way,
> but at the same time increases costs and workload for those that do the
> right thing alrady.
>
>
>> To an extreme, there should always be a known contact responsible for
>> any network infrastructure. If this is not the case, what's the
>> purpose of a registry then?
>
> "a known contact" and "an *abuse-handling* contact" is not the same thing.
>
> Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael
> Emmer
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>
>
>