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] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Fri May 8 13:13:01 CEST 2020
El 29/4/20 14:23, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de gert at space.net> escribió: Hi, On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 01:44:42PM +0200, Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > >> Coming from the incident response side, I'm tiered of people constantly > >> telling me, that issues are not their problem > > > > How would this proposal help with said problem? > > - It will catch the cases where some miss configuration happened indeed This is already caught today. The RIPE NCC *does* abuse-c mailbox validation today. [Jordi] But is not working, it is just a technical validation. > - It will make it impossible for orgs to say "We never received a report" How so? Yes, there is a mailbox. But if someone doesn't care, why would they not still claim "I have never seen a report"? [Jordi] We need to know stats about those cases. > - It allows us to enumerate better who does good work and who doesn't. And how does *this proposal* have any influence on this? [Jordi] I agree here with Gert. Personally, I will like to know who is not handling abuse cases, so I can filter its network. As "what is best for the community, at the time being", and the way I phrased it in the proposal I just want to have stats, not pointing to anyone. I'm usually more of an reporter than a responder, but I've seen both sides - and [as I've said before...] you don't get orgs that do not care to magically expend resources on abuse handling by introducing more mailbox verification procedures. 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 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com 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] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]