[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 ]
Tobias Knecht
tk at abusix.com
Tue Nov 29 16:49:02 CET 2011
Hi Denis, thank you very much! Looking forward the document. Thanks, Tobias -- abusix Am 29.11.11 16:35, schrieb Denis Walker: > HI Tobias and others > > As requested we will prepare a document on a technical implementation, > as discussed by the Task Force, for your proposed policy. We expect to > be able to publish this tomorrow. > > Regards > Denis Walker > Business Analyst > RIPE NCC Database Group > > On 29/11/11:49 12:54 PM, Tobias Knecht wrote: >> Hi, >> >>>> In my opinion it does not make any sense to include implementation >>>> details into an policy. Two reasons for that. Nobody cares about >>>> the implementation details in 10 years when things are in place. >>>> This would pollute the policy. And second, what happens if another >>>> proposal coming up in 5 years changes the whole design of >>>> database? >>> >>> I am aware of that. I think It would be fine for everyone, if the >>> proposal contains a reference to a document which defines this. >> >> I already asked RIPE NCC folks to join the discussion and come up with >> the implementation details and the operational details on how things are >> handled if data is inaccurate. >> >>>> I do not want to mix up the fact of going to London (introducing >>>> the abuse-c) with the fact on how to go to London (how to implement >>>> things). >>> >>> Yet, it should be defined to make sure everybody _is_ in London on >>> Dec. 10. >> >> I guess we agree on that. ;-) Additional paper would make sense. >> >>>> I'm against every team/member/robot should figure that out >>>> themselves. >>> >>> So you are proposing a kind of "one-size-fits-all" on how to process >>> data internally. I am curious if this works. >> >> We are talking about formats that are intended to be machine readable >> (arf, xarf, IODEF). Every single of the todays official formats can be >> parsed full automatic. Even not "official" formats like spamcop or >> others can be parsed automatically. Things that can not be parsed >> automatically can be forwarded to an internal mailbox and can be >> manually reviewed. My experience tells me that more than 98% of the >> incoming reports are within the top 10 fully automatic parsable formats >> and only 2% of the incoming traffic has to be reviews manually. >> >> This whole routing process takes less than an hour to be implemented in >> procmail. >> >> But that would go to far into another interesting discussion. If you are >> interested in that we can go on off list. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Tobias >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20111129/f94ffe82/attachment.sig>
- 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 ]