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] Question about spam to abuse inbox
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Sun Feb 21 20:19:07 CET 2021
Hi, There seems to be at least one rule common to everyone: if you want to run a network with an independent routing policy you'll need to use BGP. Unfortunately it seems dealing with abuse emerging from the networks one runs is not a common, basic, rule for everyone. Also, network admins should stick to run networks, and not try to handle abuse by themselves. But a lot of networks don't have anyone to do that (or have a business model in which all abuse reports are discarded by default), hence the chaos. Regards, Carlos On Sun, 21 Feb 2021, Randy Bush wrote: > there is a fair bit of spectrum between the internet of cooperating > competitors running their networks as prudently as they can afford > and an internet desired by some where everything is done uniformly > by rigid written rules. > > what i find interesting is that a number of the folk here who > loudly espouse the latter don't actually run networks. > > randy >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]