[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 ]
ox
andre at ox.co.za
Sat Feb 17 05:49:15 CET 2018
On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 12:30:53 -0800 Troy Mursch <troy at wolvtech.com> wrote: > 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. > +1 > 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. > +1 > 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. +1 > Also, RIPE NCC executive just got extraordinary powers to revoke > resource >>False - no new powers are granted to RIPE NCC by this >> proposal. > +1 > > > __ > > *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 > > > >
- 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 ]