Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Contacts
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:02:01 +0100
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 05:21:56AM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
> >> Why would anyone be annoyed by being asked to behave responsibly?
> > There's no way a LIR can ensure that all data is correct 100% of the
> > time -
>
> Nor, I think, have any of the proposals required that.
This wasn't so clear. At least not to me.
> Only that when
> errors are brought to the attention of the delegating authority, that
> they are corrected promptly, or the delegating authority accepts
> responsibility for correcting abuse from within the space, or the space
> deallocated.
That's something we try to do anyway (but we're not proactively searching
for stale data, just updating things that we notice - or are notified
about - that are broken).
> > Commercial relations are not "parent-children" relations, and it's
> > not our job to educate our customers in such a way.
>
> No, but it _is_ your job to make sure the address sapce you have been
> assigned is not used irresponsibly. If you don't require your
> customers to maintain working contacts, you must take on that function
> yourself; anything less is irresponsible.
I agree. In the case of our network space, that would be straightforward
- if the more-specific inetnum has stale contact data, the encompassing
object will have our data, and this data is correct.
> (Which was where we came in;
> the RIPE NCC as not only being irresponsible in this respect but is
> strongly resisting fixing it.)
Usually the RIPE NCC is spending some effort to ensure that they
have up-to-date contact information at the LIRs. In recent times, this
has been more difficult than usual, due to all those people and
companies disappearing.
[..]
> > it just means "you get to hit the people that have had their
> > resources stolen by spammers more quickly".
>
> More like "get to call address space owners to account for how their
> resources are being used to damage the rest of the net".
Usually they notice pretty quickly ("my line to the 'net is so slow
today and e-mail isn't working either").
> I don't expect any provider to be spammer-free. What I *do* want is for
> providers to kick spammers off promptly,
So do I. But then, there's no legal contract between RIPE and the LIR
to enforce that.
> and there are only a few that
> do that. There's a rogue registrar - not just provider, but
> *registrar* - up right now whose containing RIPE netblock has been
> sitting on their thumbs for well over a year (the first complaint I can
> lay ready hand on is dated 2001-08-25). And nobody is willing to call
> them to account for hosting a spam-supporter despite repeated
> notifications, over a long period, of the problem.
There is no mechanism in the RIPE land to force them to disconnect
spammers. The only thing that will work is *peer pressure*.
Even if RIPE were to take their address space away - they can't stop
them from announcing it (if they are really rogue). Wrong approach.
[..]
> > Your solution requires cooperation from the majority of the LIRs, and
> > I know at least one that will object.
>
> So now at least we know _who_ objects to being required to act
> responsibly, even if we don't have an answer to _why_ - the closest I
> saw to an explanation of why was something I would summarize as "an
> exaggeration of your proposal would be more expensive than we happen to
> feel like supporting".
I think it boils down to that, yes. The way I read it, it was excessive.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55671 (55600)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
