[anti-abuse-wg] Proposal: Publish effective users' abuse-c

Hi Denis,

I followed the discussion, and got a rough idea of how it works.  At the time, 
I succeeded convincing my ISP (Eutelia) to assign an abuse-mailbox to me. 
Afterwards the policy changed, but meanwhile my ISP went belly up and I 
couldn't convince the new one to set abuse-c for me.

The idea is to add extra addresses to assignment objects, irrespective of the 
resource holder, based on the wish of its customer who is actually connected to 
the resource.  Would that be at all possible?  And, if yes, would it be 
acceptable by the resource holder or are there contractual impediments? 
Finally, if feasibility is ok, would operators take advantage of it or is it 
only me?


Best
ale


On Thu 20/Jan/2022 16:18:10 +0100 denis walker wrote:
> Hi Alessandro
> 
> Do you realise that abuse-c works hierarchically? The resource holder
> is required to have an abuse-c in their ORGANISATION object as a
> default. It was agreed by the community a few years ago to allow
> additional abuse-c attributes in the resource objects. So if an end
> user wants to receive abuse reports for their network the resource
> holder can add an additional abuse-c attribute into the assignment
> object (which is usually maintained by the resource holder). The abuse
> ROLE object can be maintained by the end user so they can set their
> own abuse email address. A query will only return the closest abuse
> email address to any given IP address. So for any address in the end
> user's range it will return their abuse email.
> 
> cheers
> denis
> co-chair DB-WG
> 
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 13:37, Alessandro Vesely <vesely at tana.it> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> we all know abuse-c data is to be filled by the IP assignee, which I call ISP
>> in the following.
>>
>> I understand that, since ISPs own IP space it is their job to ensure that it
>> isn't abused.  If they give up the receiving of abuse complaints and give it to
>> their customer instead, and they don't receive the complaints as a result, then
>> they won't be aware if their customer is violating important policies.
>>
>> However, it is the ISPs' customers who are the effective users of those IPs.
>> Any complaint, whether reporting spam or botnet activity, can probably be
>> handled more effectively by the people who run the systems connected to a given
>> IP than the actual owner.
>>
>> I propose that RIPE accepts abuse-c email addresses from verified effective
>> users of a range of IP numbers, stores them in the database, and serves them in
>> RDAP/ WHOIS queries besides the abuse-c addresses provided by the ISP.  Various
>> automated methods can be adopted to allow an effective user to be verified; for
>> example publishing an HTTP URL or a DNS entry.  Abuse contacts added that way
>> can expire after a few months, forcing the effective user to renew them, so as
>> to avoid stale entries.
>>
>> I'm unsure if the above requires proposing a new policy or what else.  For the
>> time being, it would be interesting to gauge if this WG likes the idea and if
>> there are effective users, apart from me, who would be interested in publishing
>> their abuse-c.
>>
>>
>> Best
>> Ale
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/
>