[anti-abuse-wg] National PSDN "UZPAK"
Reza Farzan rezaf at mindspring.com
Thu Mar 29 02:05:51 CEST 2012
Florian, As I had stated in my earlier message, I had forwarded my Spam report to the following address [admin at uzpak.uz], but it came back with this error message: ------- A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: ripeadmin at uzpak.uz SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<ripeadmin at uzpak.uz>: host mail.uzpak.uz [184.108.40.206]: 553 sorry, this recipient is not in my validrcptto list (#5.7.1) ------- As you may know, many networks show and use invalid, or even fake contact e-mail addresses in order to frustrate everyone, and the National PSDN "UZPAK" is no exception. On a daily basis, I report such abuse violations to Spamcop.net, http://www.spamcop.net/, and in many instances, the IP address either does not have an Abuse Reporting e-mail, or the e-mail addresses listed in the Whois directory is bogus. So, having a street address, a phone number, and even an invalid email address, does not change anything; it creates frustration and despair. One way to hold all networks accountable perhaps would be for the RIPE NCC to send an e-mail [once a year] to addresses in their Whois listing, thereby confirming and verifying their correctness and validity. Thank you, Reza Farzan rezaf at mindspring.com =========== > -----Original Message----- > From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net > [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Florian Weimer > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 2:35 PM > To: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Cc: Laura Cobley; Michele Neylon :: Blacknight; > <rezaf at mindspring.com>; <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] National PSDN "UZPAK" > > * Suresh Ramasubramanian: > > > There is clearly a fiduciary duty as the custodians of a scarce, > > depleting, common good. > > > > So, why would an analogy about due diligence not score points? > > Because we do not value accountability in our financial institutions. > > Back to the original topic. I agree that we face various > issues with service provider accountability, but one of the > major problems with this and similar discussions is that > those who demand some form of action make claims which are > quite obviously not factually correct. > > The allocated resource covering 220.127.116.11 is the inetnum > object 18.104.22.168 - 22.214.171.124, allocated to this LIR: > > organisation: ORG-UNCN1-RIPE > org-name: Uzpak Net (Country Net of Independence > Republic of Uzbekistan) > org-type: LIR > address: National Data Network Company > 8th floor, 8, Druzhba Narodov str., > 700043, Tashkent, > Uzbekistan > phone: +998 71 114 6314 > phone: +998 71 144 4804 > fax-no: +998 71 114 6322 > e-mail: admin at uzpak.uz > admin-c: BM2509-RIPE > admin-c: MBA-RIPE > mnt-ref: AS8193-MNT > mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > changed: [...] 20120308 > source: RIPE > > There you have a street address, a phone number, and even an > email address. Does this change anything about > accountability? Not sure. > > For PA resources, such information is relatively easy to find. > However, RIPE NCC is not able to provide this as a service, > and restricts access to the database in a way that makes it > impossible to offer such a service to the general public. > But these obstacles are created by RIPE NCC and the RIPE > community, and not the resource holders. > > Again, let me stress that this case is far from unique. We > often see claims that some network is "bad". I'm slightly > out of touch with regards to current network-wide events, but > I still feel that I should be able to recognize proof of > badness as such. But what happens far too often is that > folks who I know are knowledgeable about these things cannot > express their rationale in terms I can understand or accept > as proof. This is a problem. >