[anti-abuse-wg] New on RIPE Labs: How We Will Be Validating abuse-c
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] New on RIPE Labs: How We Will Be Validating abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] *** Re: New on RIPE Labs: How We Will Be Validating abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Thu Oct 11 10:00:28 CEST 2018
Ronald, To address one point; Legacy resources are excluded because that is the way that RIPE Policy works. It was not a choice of the NCC, rather it is a consequence of history and not something easily changed. I should note there will also be a short presentation from the NCC about this work at our meeting next week. Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AAWG Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -----Original Message----- > From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of > Ronald F. Guilmette > Sent: Wednesday 10 October 2018 21:08 > To: Mirjam Kuehne <mir at ripe.net> > Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] New on RIPE Labs: How We Will Be Validating > abuse-c > > > In message <405d6ae2-ca13-57d4-4c8d-09e1166cec3d at ripe.net>, > Mirjam Kuehne <mir at ripe.net> wrote: > > >At the RIPE NCC we’re busy working out a process so we can start > >validating approximately 70,000 abuse contact email addresses in the > >RIPE Database. Read on RIPE Labs how we will approach this: > > > >https://labs.ripe.net/Members/angela_dallara/how-we-will-be-validating- > >abuse-c > > I am not persuaded that the following two bullet points, taken together, > make any real sense: > > * Legacy resources are not within the scope of the policy. We will > not be validating the abuse contacts for these resources. > > * This process is about fixing invalid information -- we're not > looking to apply sanctions or close down members. > > Given that there is, explicitly, no element of sanctions/punishment intended > here, why on earth would you build and deploy an entire set of mechanisms > to perform abuse-c validation, and then intentionally avoid using these new > tools for some subset of all resource holders, even though they could clearly > produce benefits in all cases? > > Another question... The above document says the following: > > THE PROCESS > > ... > We will start with a verification tool which checks that there are no > formatting errors in the email address, verifies DNS entries, looks > for bogus or honeypot emails, and uses ping to check that the mailbox > exists and can accept mail. This tool does not send any emails and > won't require any action on the part of the abuse contact. > > If you would be so kind, could you please flesh out your notion of the > intended meaning of the word "ping" in this context? > > Because your intent is to follow through and actually send email messages, > after these initial and preliminary checks, perhaps I am just picking at nits > here, but I would suggest that "ping" in the context might best be defined as > a process, using SMTP, that actually checks all relevant MXes (in priority > order, of course) to see if they will accept (or at least not permanently reject) > a partial SMTP transaction where the RCPT TO is the address of the intended > recipient, but where no DATA command is issued. > > I have just one last point. The above document also says: > > An initial test with the validation tool suggests that around 20-25% > of resource holders may need to validate or update their abuse contacts. > > Some may not see it that way, but in my opinion that is certainly an > encouraging preliminary result. I would have guessed something more on > the order of 50% of all abuse-c contacts would have issues. I suspect > however that the figure of 20-25% may rise significantly if this process is > applied universally, as it should be, to all resource holders. > > > Regards, > rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] New on RIPE Labs: How We Will Be Validating abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] *** Re: New on RIPE Labs: How We Will Be Validating abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]