From gilles.massen at restena.lu Mon Oct 7 16:02:46 2013 From: gilles.massen at restena.lu (Gilles Massen) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 16:02:46 +0200 Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum Message-ID: <5252BF06.7060207@restena.lu> Dear WGs, In the light of the upcoming RIPE meeting I'd like to bring the problem of a single entity (organisation) wanting different abuse-c for different resources up again. The discussion starting in June (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2013-June/004079.html ) was rather open ended. Apparently the only workable solution at this point is to create a duplicate organisation object with a different abuse-c. Is data duplication really the solution that the WGs would like? Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 6, rue Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg tel: (+352) 424409 fax: (+352) 422473 From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Mon Oct 7 17:04:28 2013 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 16:04:28 +0100 Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum In-Reply-To: <5252BF06.7060207@restena.lu> References: <5252BF06.7060207@restena.lu> Message-ID: <95B0A38C-C29E-4CB9-90CC-39A8981EB680@ucd.ie> On 7 Oct 2013, at 15:02, Gilles Massen wrote: > In the light of the upcoming RIPE meeting I'd like to bring the problem > of a single entity (organisation) wanting different abuse-c for > different resources up again. The discussion starting in June > (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2013-June/004079.html ) > was rather open ended. > > Apparently the only workable solution at this point is to create a > duplicate organisation object with a different abuse-c. > > Is data duplication really the solution that the WGs would like? I'm glad you've re-opened this question, Gilles, as I just last week had occasion to update an object which had long had multiple 'abuse-c' contacts, and had to choose which one to keep. I'm in the "No" camp wrt your question above. Back in the original "abuse-c" proposal [*], http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2004-January/002489.html there was provision for multiple "abuse-c" attributes, but this was not carried over into the current specification. Would "hint strings" be a way to go, or have you something else in mind, or are you just re-opening the question? ATB /Niall [*] Disclosure: I was a co-author. /N From gilles.massen at restena.lu Mon Oct 7 23:00:28 2013 From: gilles.massen at restena.lu (Gilles Massen) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 23:00:28 +0200 Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum In-Reply-To: <95B0A38C-C29E-4CB9-90CC-39A8981EB680@ucd.ie> References: <5252BF06.7060207@restena.lu> <95B0A38C-C29E-4CB9-90CC-39A8981EB680@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <525320EC.3080703@restena.lu> On 7/10/13 17:04 , Niall O'Reilly wrote: > > On 7 Oct 2013, at 15:02, Gilles Massen wrote: >> Apparently the only workable solution at this point is to create a >> duplicate organisation object with a different abuse-c. >> >> Is data duplication really the solution that the WGs would like? > > I'm glad you've re-opened this question, Gilles, as I just > last week had occasion to update an object which had long > had multiple 'abuse-c' contacts, and had to choose which one > to keep. > > I'm in the "No" camp wrt your question above. Glad to hear that. I'm not sure I would make use of multiple abuse-c for a given object, unless one could provide some additional information with them. > Back in the original "abuse-c" proposal [*], > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2004-January/002489.html > > there was provision for multiple "abuse-c" attributes, > but this was not carried over into the current specification. > > Would "hint strings" be a way to go, or have you something > else in mind, or are you just re-opening the question? The short version: No, yes, not really :) A bit more verbose: While I certainly would welcome a mechanism like 'hint strings' and have use for it, it would not apply my case where I simply need different abuse-c for different subnets, not due to the type of report but rather for the people that should read/react upon them. Not all inet*nums are equally important. As for re-opening the question: I feel that it was never closed, only abandoned over summer time. But the most important driver for coming back is that the only available solution (data duplication) is so tremendously wrong that I'd really like the WGs to be conscious about it. It the members feels that's ok and I'm only paranoid about data quality - fine. Silence, however, it not going to convince me. Something else in mind: as before: allow abuse-c for inet*num. Prefer and encourage the organisation way, but allow the other. Even if I did share Tobias' belief that attaching abuse-c to inet*num would weaken it's overall quality, I'd always prefer a hypothetical issue (intenum+abuse-c) over a certain one (multiple identical roles), unless the former is substantiated by something more than 'someone might get it wrong'. If anyone has a different idea, please share! Best, Gilles From gert at space.net Tue Oct 8 13:29:43 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:29:43 +0200 Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum In-Reply-To: <525320EC.3080703@restena.lu> References: <5252BF06.7060207@restena.lu> <95B0A38C-C29E-4CB9-90CC-39A8981EB680@ucd.ie> <525320EC.3080703@restena.lu> Message-ID: <20131008112943.GF65295@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 11:00:28PM +0200, Gilles Massen wrote: > Something else in mind: as before: allow abuse-c for inet*num. Prefer This. (But I've said this before :-) - I do not see it as a useful excercise having to create an organization: object for the sole purpose of being able to have a different abuse-c: for some inet(6)num object) Gert Doering -- inetnum maintainer -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Wed Oct 9 10:41:22 2013 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 09:41:22 +0100 Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE67 AA-WG Agenda - Latest Message-ID: <525516B2.7000101@heanet.ie> Morning (where I am, certainly), We've made a small tweak to the AA-WG agenda for Thursday of next week, swapping some items around and I just wanted to update you all: https://ripe67.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/anti-abuse-wg/ Thursday, 17 October 14:00 ? 15:30 A. Administrative Matters - Welcome - Scribe, Jabber, Stenography - Microphone Etiquette - Approve Minutes from RIPE 66 - Finalise agenda B. Policies - RIPE Policy 2011-06 Update, RIPE NCC - RIPE Policy Proposal 2013-01 C. Update - C1. Recent List Discussion - C2. AA-WG Charter D. Interactions - D1. Working Groups - D2. RIPE NCC Gov/LEA Interactions Update E. Presentation - E1. ACDC Project - E2. x-arf ? Tobias Knecht X. A.O.B. Z. Agenda for RIPE 68 Obviously if anyone does have any last minute additions to the agenda, please let Tobias and I know. Brian From elvis at velea.eu Thu Oct 10 18:08:48 2013 From: elvis at velea.eu (Elvis Velea) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:08:48 +0200 Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum In-Reply-To: <20131010155059.GA9915@danton.fire-world.de> References: <5252BF06.7060207@restena.lu> <95B0A38C-C29E-4CB9-90CC-39A8981EB680@ucd.ie> <525320EC.3080703@restena.lu> <20131008112943.GF65295@Space.Net> <20131010155059.GA9915@danton.fire-world.de> Message-ID: <5256D110.9060701@velea.eu> Hi, On 10/10/13 5:50 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: > * Gert Doering [2013-10-08 13:33]: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 11:00:28PM +0200, Gilles Massen wrote: >>> Something else in mind: as before: allow abuse-c for inet*num. Prefer >> >> This. >> >> (But I've said this before :-) - I do not see it as a useful excercise >> having to create an organization: object for the sole purpose of being >> able to have a different abuse-c: for some inet(6)num object) > > ++++++1 I think that having the abuse-c role linked to the org object was a great idea. I also understand that some organisation may want to have different abuse contacts/roles defined for different IP blocks. One way on how this could be fixed, in my opinion, is by allowing an abuse-c role to be referenced in the inet*num object (but only if the inet*num object references an org that already has an abuse-c role referenced). In this case, the general abuse-c would be the one referenced in the org and the 'local' abuse-c would be the role referenced in the inet*num object. cheers, elvis From ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de Thu Oct 17 09:48:37 2013 From: ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de (Frank Gadegast) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:48:37 +0200 Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] contradictory abuse contacts and some stats Message-ID: <525F9655.7030509@powerweb.de> Hi, we realize more and more networks having an abuse-c now, but also realize that most networks now have contradictory abuse email addresses spreaded in between new abuse contacts or old remarks or abuse-mailbox-fields. Might be a good idea to contact alls memmbers and LIR again to fix their records now ... Find some stats from our blacklist attached, it shows basically, that there is no big effort to be seen from spammers or spam friendly or ignorant LIRs to use the new abuse-c, the percentage of networks that are sending spam AND having an abuse-c contact is going up and down, but has not even reached 50% ... Pretty poor. Kind regards, Frank -- MOTD: "have you enabled SSL on a website or mailbox today ?" -- 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 ====================================================================== -------------- next part -------------- date spam from RIPE-IP without contact with contact % with contact 2013.10.16 521 287 234 44% 2013.10.15 541 319 222 41% 2013.10.14 1186 832 354 29% 2013.10.13 455 256 199 43% 2013.10.12 425 260 165 38% 2013.10.11 1310 908 402 30% 2013.10.10 1525 1047 478 31% 2013.10.09 967 552 415 42% 2013.10.08 908 584 324 35% 2013.10.07 836 524 312 37% 2013.10.06 691 427 264 38% 2013.10.05 521 333 188 36% 2013.10.04 594 330 264 44% 2013.10.03 726 444 282 38% 2013.10.02 1150 704 446 38% 2013.10.01 840 522 318 37% 2013.09.30 863 573 290 33% 2013.09.29 422 222 200 47% 2013.09.28 324 153 171 52% 2013.09.27 673 362 311 46% 2013.09.26 758 417 341 44% 2013.09.25 895 497 398 44% 2013.09.24 782 482 300 38% 2013.09.23 914 541 373 40% 2013.09.22 509 316 193 37% 2013.09.21 645 424 221 34% 2013.09.20 603 382 221 36% 2013.09.19 987 595 392 39% 2013.09.18 1483 939 544 36% 2013.09.17 801 495 306 38% 2013.09.16 750 466 284 37% 2013.09.15 653 409 244 37% 2013.09.14 419 207 212 50% 2013.09.13 378 159 219 57% 2013.09.12 471 165 306 64% 2013.09.11 988 512 476 48% 2013.09.10 783 476 307 39% 2013.09.09 790 484 306 38% 2013.09.08 381 234 147 38% 2013.09.07 345 202 143 41% 2013.09.06 759 454 305 40% 2013.09.05 958 614 344 35% 2013.09.04 698 463 235 33% 2013.09.03 1638 1215 423 25% 2013.09.02 893 571 322 36% 2013.09.01 574 357 217 37% 2013.08.31 588 383 205 34% 2013.08.30 684 407 277 40% 2013.08.29 662 449 213 32% 2013.08.28 1092 749 343 31% 2013.08.27 1168 820 348 29% 2013.08.26 1456 1060 396 27% 2013.08.25 604 398 206 34% 2013.08.24 470 290 180 38% 2013.08.23 1323 973 350 26% 2013.08.22 1166 836 330 28% 2013.08.21 1213 826 387 31% 2013.08.20 1073 754 319 29% 2013.08.19 1081 753 328 30% 2013.08.18 753 532 221 29% 2013.08.17 394 244 150 38% 2013.08.16 847 592 255 30% 2013.08.15 862 604 258 29% 2013.08.14 1097 758 339 30% 2013.08.13 1115 701 414 37% 2013.08.12 966 654 312 32% 2013.08.11 570 381 189 33% 2013.08.10 583 383 200 34% 2013.08.09 1220 864 356 29% 2013.08.08 1351 941 410 30% 2013.08.07 1282 879 403 31% 2013.08.06 1392 936 456 32% 2013.08.05 1754 1284 470 26% 2013.08.04 625 423 202 32% 2013.08.03 984 663 321 32% 2013.08.02 721 468 253 35% 2013.08.01 847 575 272 32% 2013.07.26 1002 684 318 31% 2013.07.27 468 276 192 41% 2013.07.28 780 587 193 24% 2013.07.29 1115 764 351 31% 2013.07.30 1020 595 425 41% 2013.07.31 1031 672 359 34% 2013.07.25 1132 816 316 27% 2013.07.24 1225 898 327 26% 2013.07.23 871 634 237 27% 2013.07.22 865 643 222 25% 2013.07.21 471 335 136 28% 2013.07.20 801 542 259 32% 2013.07.19 970 647 323 33% 2013.07.18 1819 1326 493 27% 2013.07.17 1827 1371 456 24% 2013.07.16 1655 1222 433 26% 2013.07.15 2020 1468 552 27% 2013.07.14 610 448 162 26% 2013.07.13 724 530 194 26% 2013.07.12 884 630 254 28% 2013.07.11 1009 735 274 27% 2013.07.10 1221 961 260 21% 2013.07.09 1242 954 288 23% 2013.07.08 900 708 192 21% 2013.07.07 812 658 154 18% 2013.07.05 1059 872 187 17% 2013.07.06 504 388 116 23% 2013.07.04 463 330 133 28% 2013.07.03 1317 1090 227 17% 2013.07.02 878 709 169 19% 2013.07.01 922 739 183 19% 2013.06.30 587 503 84 14% 2013.06.29 681 542 139 20% 2013.06.28 912 728 184 20% 2013.06.27 912 720 192 21% 2013.06.26 1096 818 278 25% 2013.06.25 1122 833 289 25% 2013.06.24 1035 758 277 26% 2013.06.23 614 427 187 30% 2013.06.22 639 495 144 22% 2013.06.21 1059 720 339 32% 2013.06.20 1399 909 490 35% 2013.06.19 1189 840 349 29% 2013.06.18 1526 1222 304 19% 2013.06.17 972 758 214 22% 2013.06.16 600 458 142 23% 2013.06.15 787 636 151 19% 2013.06.14 931 686 245 26% 2013.06.13 1190 939 251 21% 2013.06.12 1248 988 260 20% 2013.06.11 843 643 200 23% 2013.06.10 901 726 175 19% 2013.06.09 519 421 98 18% 2013.06.08 523 398 125 23% 2013.06.07 692 543 149 21% 2013.06.06 630 434 196 31% 2013.06.05 529 392 137 25% 2013.06.04 461 347 114 24% 2013.06.03 434 335 99 22% 2013.06.02 406 302 104 25% 2013.06.01 412 321 91 22% 2013.05.31 680 552 128 18% 2013.05.30 944 772 172 18% 2013.05.29 950 703 247 26% 2013.05.28 962 656 306 31% 2013.05.27 654 298 356 54% 2013.05.26 482 301 181 37% 2013.05.25 1187 754 433 36% 2013.05.24 749 420 329 43% 2013.05.23 759 413 346 45% 2013.05.22 1050 578 472 44% 2013.05.21 641 342 299 46% 2013.05.20 591 308 283 47% 2013.05.19 481 281 200 41% 2013.05.18 515 321 194 37% 2013.05.17 640 357 283 44% 2013.05.16 813 495 318 39% 2013.05.15 1215 694 521 42% 2013.05.14 1116 662 454 40% 2013.05.13 1401 890 511 36% 2013.05.12 783 494 289 36% 2013.05.11 560 341 219 39% 2013.05.10 953 641 312 32% 2013.05.09 1694 1077 617 36% 2013.05.08 4059 2818 1241 30% 2013.05.07 960 623 337 35% 2013.05.06 1335 890 445 33% 2013.05.05 566 365 201 35% 2013.05.04 494 322 172 34% 2013.05.03 954 653 301 31% 2013.05.02 1060 697 363 34% 2013.05.01 991 628 363 36% 2013.04.30 1229 757 472 38% 2013.04.29 1318 800 518 39% 2013.04.28 1096 701 395 36% 2013.04.27 978 587 391 39% 2013.04.26 1476 977 499 33% 2013.04.25 1664 1064 600 36% 2013.04.24 1426 908 518 36% 2013.04.23 1110 663 447 40% 2013.04.22 974 607 367 37% 2013.04.21 826 538 288 34% 2013.04.20 806 499 307 38% 2013.04.19 918 541 377 41% 2013.04.18 2113 1429 684 32% 2013.04.17 4079 2637 1442 35% 2013.04.16 2310 1482 828 35% 2013.04.15 3192 2130 1062 33% 2013.04.14 1272 849 423 33% 2013.04.13 1195 795 400 33% 2013.04.12 716 462 254 35% 2013.04.11 1083 620 463 42% 2013.04.10 701 378 323 46% 2013.04.09 587 293 294 50% 2013.04.08 519 282 237 45% 2013.04.07 457 266 191 41% 2013.04.06 418 224 194 46% 2013.04.05 311 183 128 41% 2013.04.03 460 266 194 42% 2013.04.02 476 258 218 45% 2013.04.01 412 223 189 45% 2013.03.31 241 156 85 35% 2013.03.30 351 217 134 38% 2013.03.29 320 173 147 45% 2013.03.28 517 301 216 41% 2013.03.27 950 660 290 30% 2013.03.26 889 492 397 44% 2013.03.25 1526 1053 473 31% 2013.03.24 851 606 245 28% 2013.03.23 5051 4037 1014 20% 2013.03.22 1692 1259 433 25% 2013.03.21 1290 964 326 25% contact is an available abuse-c contact or a contact with abuse-mailbox-field as returned by "whois -b" right column shows the percentage of spam we receive from the RIPE-region wich have an abuse contact From sander at steffann.nl Thu Oct 17 13:35:03 2013 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:35:03 +0300 Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Call for feedback on 2013-01: Openness about Policy Violations Message-ID: <4584BAAF-6AB7-42FE-A3F2-7232297B2CEE@steffann.nl> Hello working group, We (the authors of 2013-01) are not sure how to continue with our policy proposal. To refresh your memories here is the summary of the proposal: > The RIPE NCC is the membership organisation that manages the shared public resources of IP addresses and Autonomous System Numbers in its service region. This proposal makes complaints about delegated resources more visible. It also specifies a separate list that documents all reclaimed resources. > > The goals are to provide more insight into the good stewardship of the RIPE NCC and to encourage assistance in stopping abuse of these shared public resources. > > This proposal explicitly does not set or change any policies about assignment, allocation or revocation of these resources. The latest version of the proposal hasn't received any feedback for the working group. Is this still something this working group wants, or should we withdraw the proposal? If you want this policy proposal to go forward: please speak up before the 17th of November If we receive no significant support then the authors will withdraw the policy proposal. Thank you, Sander Steffann Shane Kerr A.k.a. the authors of 2013-01 From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Thu Oct 17 16:14:38 2013 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:14:38 +0100 Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] contradictory abuse contacts and some stats In-Reply-To: <525F9655.7030509@powerweb.de> References: <525F9655.7030509@powerweb.de> Message-ID: <525FF0CE.2030103@heanet.ie> Frank, This was discussed this afternoon in the WG Session, not sure if you were watching or not? Frank Gadegast wrote, On 17/10/2013 08:48: > > Hi, > > we realize more and more networks having an abuse-c now, but > also realize that most networks now have contradictory abuse email > addresses spreaded in between new abuse contacts or old remarks or > abuse-mailbox-fields. > > Might be a good idea to contact alls memmbers and LIR again to fix their > records now ... The NCC stated, and I agree with them, that they don't think it's a good idea to add another round of mails on top of all the ones they have sent and all the ones they're going to send to people in the next phase of this project. The WG seemed happy to let the project proceed as planned and review what further communications are required after those phases. Thanks, Brian From md at Linux.IT Sat Oct 19 18:06:37 2013 From: md at Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 18:06:37 +0200 Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum In-Reply-To: <20131008112943.GF65295@Space.Net> References: <5252BF06.7060207@restena.lu> <95B0A38C-C29E-4CB9-90CC-39A8981EB680@ucd.ie> <525320EC.3080703@restena.lu> <20131008112943.GF65295@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20131019160637.GB6249@bongo.bofh.it> On Oct 08, Gert Doering wrote: > (But I've said this before :-) - I do not see it as a useful excercise > having to create an organization: object for the sole purpose of being > able to have a different abuse-c: for some inet(6)num object) Agreed. I am not sure about who actually disagrees with this among operators. -- ciao, Marco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: