[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Troy Mursch
troy at wolvtech.com
Fri Feb 16 21:30:53 CET 2018
1) With a lot of words about improving trust and safety in Proposal's summary, there is no evidence about issues with trust and safety with uncheked "abuse-c:" I've seen plenty of evidence and ramifications from first hand experience when abuse notifications go ignored/unanswered. 2) In my experience, real abusers have all their contacts valid (and responsive). Please share more of your experiences. I've never heard of this claim nor understand what a "real abuser" is. 3) Why only abuse-c have to be checked? There are a lot of different contacts or information, that could be verified. Because that's where you send abuse notifications. In many cases, these will be critical messages regarding ongoing threats, such as a denial of service attack or malware distribution. Also, RIPE NCC executive just got extraordinary powers to revoke resource False - no new powers are granted to RIPE NCC by this proposal. __ *Troy Mursch* *Security Researcher* Bad Packets Report <https://badpackets.net/> @bad_packets <https://twitter.com/bad_packets> (702) 509-1248 On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Alexander Isavnin <isavnin at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the reminder! > > Better late than never. > > I strongly oppose to this proposal. > > 1) With a lot of words about improving trust and safety in Proposal's > summary, there is no evidence about issues with trust and safety with > uncheked "abuse-c:" > 2) In my experience, real abusers have all their contacts valid (and > responsive). > 3) Why only abuse-c have to be checked? There are a lot of different > contacts or information, that could be verified. > > Also, RIPE NCC executive just got extraordinary powers to revoke > resources. So we have to be very carefull with policies, which may lead to > resource revocation just because of e-mail issues (i had such issues with > RIPE NCC mail servers). > > Plus all other arguments against or concerning about this proposal, raised > in discussion previously. > > Kind regards, > Alexander Isavnin > > > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20180216/73e15672/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]