<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style> </head> <body dir="ltr"> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Hello,</div> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </div> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> The LIR in his logged in account will be able to create sub-users for specific ranges.</div> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </div> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> The LIR will have an interest to do it because any unhandled abuse complaint (in the percentage statistics) will appear under the upper-LIR name. </div> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </div> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> ---</div> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </div> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Please excuse me for not replying at the time of the discussion, because Brian decided to moderate me. </div> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </div> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Respectfully,</div> <div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Elad </div> <div id="appendonsend"></div> <hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1"> <div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr">From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Alistair Mackenzie via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 3:46 PM To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") <div> </div> </div> <div class="BodyFragment"> <div class="PlainText">Hi, With this solution how to you propose that sub-allocated networks manage the complaints? These networks are not typically and LIR so would have no such access to an LIR based system. The sub-allocated prefixes carry their own abuse-c which as pointed out by Gert, already gets validated by RIPE. On 29/04/2020 13:38, S�rgio Rocha wrote: > I like this approach, should be like what Elad Wrote: > > � > > To my opinion, Ripe should create its own anti-abuse system, each LIR > will have login access to it (LIR will be able to choose to receive > notifications through sms / email) and to mark each abuse complaint as > resolved or not (that system can also have an API so LIR's will be able > to pull their abuse complaints), the main issue is that complaints to > that system will not be able to be done automatically or by email - only > manually by form filling with captcha. (after the LIR will mark an abuse > complain as resolved - the complainer will receive an email address also > to confirm with him if issue is resolved or not, non-detailed statistics > will be able to be displayed to the whole community - to see the > percentage of how many manual complaints weren't handled by each LIR)� > > � > > No Spam, accountable, possible to integrate with LIR system, possible to > have public rate about �abuse dealing� > > � > > � > > � > > � > > � > > *De:* anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> *Em Nome De *Elad Cohen > *Enviada:* 29 de abril de 2020 11:15 > *Para:* anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net; Serge Droz <serge.droz@first.org> > *Assunto:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of > "abuse-mailbox") > > � > > What is this ? > > � > > "However, the community should report any situation to the RIPE NCC, > which can provide (anonymous) periodical statistics to the community, > which can take further decisions about that." > > � > > Ripe members are informers? > > � > > "divide and conquer" strategy ? > > � > > Abuse email addresses (just like any other email address) are being > spammed, not only by non-relevant spammers but also by automatic useless > services that are installed at servers that don't take themselves any > measure of proper configuration to avoid the automatic useless services. > > � > > To my opinion, Ripe should create its own anti-abuse system, each LIR > will have login access to it (LIR will be able to choose to receive > notifications through sms / email) and to mark each abuse complaint as > resolved or not (that system can also have an API so LIR's will be able > to pull their abuse complaints), the main issue is that complaints to > that system will not be able to be done automatically or by email - only > manually by form filling with captcha. (after the LIR will mark an abuse > complain as resolved - the complainer will receive an email address also > to confirm with him if issue is resolved or not, non-detailed statistics > will be able to be displayed to the whole community - to see the > percentage of how many manual complaints weren't handled by each LIR) > > � > > --- > > � > > Besides the above, I also believe that we as a community should not > accept complainers which are not taking the most basic configuration > actions to protect their systems, and would consider these complaints as > spam. In order for abuse complaints not to be abused. > > � > > Respectfully, > > Elad > > � > > � > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*anti-abuse-wg on behalf of Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2020 11:22 AM > *To:* anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <<a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a>> > *Subject:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of > "abuse-mailbox") > > � > > Hi All > > I think this is a good policy. > > We can always find use cases where it fails, but it will help in some > cases. > > And if some one is not able to answer an e-mail every six month, there > are probably underlying issues. Also the argument, that the bad guys > flood the mailbox is not really acceptable. It just means you can't > filter spam. > > The proposal does not check how the reports are used. But it helps us to > enumerate organizations, that don't act, coming up with various excuses, > along the lines the best problems are some one else's problems, so let's > make it some on else's problem. > > The fact is: Most mature organizations are perfectly capable of handling > such mail boxes, even if they have a high load. > > Coming from the incident response side, I'm tiered of people constantly > telling me, that issues are not their problem > > Best > Serge > > > > > > On 28.04.20 16:01, Petrit Hasani wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >> >> A new version of RIPE policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of >> "abuse-mailbox"", is now available for discussion. >> >> This proposal aims to have the RIPE NCC validate "abuse-c:" information >> more often and introduces a new validation process. >> >> Most of the text has been rewritten following the last round of >> discussion and the proposal is now at version 3.0. Some key points in >> this version: >> >> - The abuse-mailbox should not force the sender to use a form >> - The validation process must ensure that the abuse mailbox is able to >> receive messages >> - The validation should happen at least every six months >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04</a> >> >> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this >> four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide >> feedback to the proposer. >> >> At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of >> the Anti-Abuse Working Group Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the >> proposal. >> >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <<a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a>>> before 27 May > 2020. >> >> Kind regards, >> -- >> Petrit Hasani >> Policy Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Dr. Serge Droz > Chair of the FIRST Board of Directors > <a href="https://www.first.org">https://www.first.org</a> > </div> </div> </body> </html>