[anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an

Bradley Freeman wrote:

Hello,

>> Its only against members, that are ignoring that there attitude
>> or business model causes real harm to others.
> 
> This proposal still will not help the abuse desks which are uncooperative
> which is the real problem.

Yes, thats true, if your are willing to ignore reports, it will
help nothing.
But it will help to make uneducated members more aware and
to help others that are not really far in the process
of developing a real abuse team.

>>> If a RIPE member has an abuse contact and sets up abuse contact
>> objects for every allocation, why do you need anything else?
>>
>> Like I outline already:
>> - whois is complicated and unusefull for end users
> 
> And do you believe that this proposal will be used by end users who couldn't
> use whois?

Yes, it this easy IP-scheme-email address will get public, there
will be a lot of more people akt, when they receive spam.

Our customers asking as a lot, where to report spam too ...
... and we have no easy answer to that.

>> - IRT objects makes it even more complicated
> 
> I simply disagree, IRT objects simplify the whois and provide a clear
> contact email.

IRT objects will be additional and maybe even non-mandatory again.
It will end up having two things to check.
The remarks of a netrange object, maybe even the route object and
the IRT object.

And thats send all different for a lot of RIRs.

If like the IRT object being a help, it would have to
be mandatory, and there we start again.

>> - nobody is meassuring the members so far
>> - nobody has detailed data about how much abuse is really happening
>>   except really well-known blacklists like spamhaus
> 
> My network != your network, I don't see any point in measuring the abuse
> from ISPs in this manner. As James said previously larger networks will
> generate greater amounts of abuse, and ISPs with different businesses models
> will generate varying amounts of abuse, a high level of abuse from a network
> is not indicative that you are running a bad network. Additionally there is
> nothing that RIPE could do with this data it is simply a meaningless metric.

Clear.

I clarified this in another mail today, as an example how I think
it could work ...

> 
>> It isnt that bad, if you will get reports, that are more standarized.
> 
> There is an IETF working group on Messaging Abuse Reporting Format, I am not
> involved in it and not aware of its status, this proposal would not achieve
> standardisation.

Somebody just posted a link, thnx for that !
Will include that in the next version of the draft, including
all valuable feedback I collected so far.


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
======================================================================
Public PGP Key available for frank at powerweb.de