[anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Frank Gadegast
ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de
Thu Dec 8 02:01:33 CET 2011
chrish at consol.net wrote: > Hi! Hi, > There already is an admin-c. Well, administration is something completely different than abuse responsibilty, right ? One is called "administration", the other is "abuse" ... ... "administration", "abuse", you see, two different words. Two different responsibilities. I somehow got puzzled, because you really think, that somebody should try to reach your admin-c, when reporting spam or other abuse. The admin-c is the administration, the CEO, the owner, not the administrator of some resources. Could that all explain your big confusion ? Yes, and thats why your arguments are all wrong and useless and are only confusing. > And what responsibility are you referring to? Surely your responsibility for the use of the resources giving your company by your RIR/LIR. Who should I contact, if one of your servers on your networks got hacked and misused for attacking our networks ? Please publish some email addresses at the right places, so I could contact you quick as possible, what also helps you to identify problems. I will defny not contact your admin-c, hes probably on a long business trip aqcuiring a third company, maybe "Consol Ltd.", making holidays or is ill, I need an email address of your anti abuse staff beeing read 24x7 and no postal address or phone only working daytime on business days. > ConSol* GmbH is - as you probably already know from your extensive research, which btw also shows that your 'accusation' of 'hiding' is obviously unfounded - not my company. Hm, obviously wrong, these to companies are directly nested: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10 ;; flags: qr rd ra; Ques: 1, Ans: 1, Auth: 3, Addit: 2 ;; QUESTIONS: ;; consol.net, type = MX, class = IN ;; ANSWERS: consol.net. 63955 MX 10 mailrelay.consol.de. ;; AUTHORITY RECORDS: consol.net. 63955 NS dns3.consol.net. consol.net. 63955 NS dns2.consol.net. consol.net. 63955 NS dns1.consol.net. And you have an address under @consol.net But you are using the internal resources, mailservers and gateways of consol.de So: consol.de and consol.net are the same and you are an internal. Received: from sol1.bb.consol.de (sol1.bb.consol.de [10.250.0.71]) by gw1.consol.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pB7L3g6f040098 BTW: you have no signature attached, thats why it has to go over the list only. Im not sending somebody email, when hes not open enough to tell who he is. > To force admin-cs to use different/multiple mailboxes, another attribute is necessary. > That would be abuse-mailbox. > This already exists, so everybody who wants to use it, can use it. It's just that currently nobody is forced to use it, if you don't want/need to use it, you don't have to. > >> So, everybody thats has to complain simply knows now who to contact > > ...that would be the admin-c. > And following the proposal: in some cases following weird, diffuse, and sparsely defined policies maybe also an abuse-c. > >> and will nevermore bother somebodys personal email address like >> the email named in the admin-c (see an example below). > > The email address listed in my admin-c object is not my private personal email, but the email address chosen for the admin-c - for being contacted in case of administrative issues. > This is true for both role and person objects. > If you don't want to be emailed personally, use a role object. If you don't want people to use a specific email - don't list it in your contact objects! > > Even if you chose for whatever strange reason to enter into a role or person object an email you don't want people querying the db to know/use, what you would need following that rationale is an abuse-mailbox attribute for that admin-c object. Not another -c object. > (Actually I guess a new 'secret-email' attribute would fit best for your needs) > >> The other places will fanish just in the moment the abuse-c is >> introduced, simply because because every resource owner has >> to re-think, how a complaint should reach him. > > Sorry, no. According to the proposal, there will be additional objects and attributes. And people are forced to 'accept' being bulk-spammed. That's it. > > The rest is prophecy (and experience suggests the opposite - see the remarks on contradicting abuse-mailbox and other attributes in this very same thread). > > Btw, a short hint for resource owners on how to be contacted: > - list your postal address in the way you'd wish to be contacted by postal service > - list the phone number you'd wish to be contacted by by phone > - list the fax number you'd wish to be contacted by by fax, or leave it out if you don't want to be contacted by fax > - list the email address you'd wish to be contacted by, or leave it out if you don't want to be contacted by email > - list the abuse-mailbox email address you'd wish to be contacted by in case of abuse complaints in case you wish to have a special mailbox for those, or leave it out if you don't > >> If the resource owner does not like any confusion, he will >> have to remove abuse contacts from the remark section. > > Non-sequitur. > I'd say: to minimize confusion, let's not add the proposed stuff. :) > >> Its the usual reaction from somebody who likes to hide his personal >> responsibility: > > Well I think my explanation was quite comprehensive. > > On the other hand I think trying to go ad personam in a technical discussion should not be accepted. > > ConSol* GmbH is - as you probably already know from your extensive research, which btw also shows that your 'accusation' of 'hiding' is obviously unfounded - not my company. I'm working for ConSol*, and domain registration is not in my areas of responsibility or influence. Having said that - while wondering why, I mean it's not (well - it shouldn't be) your business - you might want to return to on-topic, non-ad-personam discussion. > And what responsibility are you referring to? I mean, this sounds like I'm supposed to "take the responsibility to disagree with you"? Spooky... > >> hm, no abuse contact in the remarks, no abuse-mailbox, no nothing ... > > Thanks for providing the opportunity to point that out. > There is no abuse-c (well...), there is no abuse-mailbox, but there's no no nothing: there is an admin-c, and that admin-c has (among other contact data) an e-mail. > >> And a personal email address, thats obviously not related to >> your company (mabye simple because a lot of spam and wrong >> complains is arriving there). > > Again, all this is pulled out of thin air (much like the 'substance' of the proposal, if you ask me). > > It's a person object, in that regard 'personal email address' is probably formally right. And also: not surprising. :) > I don't see how that is 'obviously not related to the company'. And regarding the rest of your statement, I don't quite understand what you're trying to say there. > >> You should really support the proposal, it will help you a lot. > > Well actually, as I already explained, at least for the broad majority this proposal doesn't help, but complicates things and causes partly severe problems. So I don't really see a future for it... > And this also doesn't really seem to change, it actually gets worse: in your reply I didn't find a single argument explaining or clarifying on the issues I mentioned, or bringing forward any new or neglected aspects. And experience shows that being attacked personally when trying to discuss a technical issue is a red flag regarding the subject and/or the motivation of the attacking party... > > I still failed to see who might be 'helped' by the proposed stuff, and how... I mean, I'm convinced the authors at least had to think this will somehow help them, but I don't see how... > > Regards, > > Chris > > Kind regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank at powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank at powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ======================================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]