[anti-abuse-wg] Verification of abuse contact addresses ?

Dear Ronald,

Thank you for asking about the status of the policy change 2017-02, 
"Regular abuse-c Validation".

It is correct that the implementation phase is still ongoing. Currently 
we are validating all the abuse contact information referenced in LIR
organisation objects. Then we will proceed with the validation of abuse 
contacts referenced in LIR resource objects - the example that you
mentioned belongs to this group. And finally all abuse contacts 
referenced in End User (sponsored) objects will be validated.

You can read more details on the policy implementation in this RIPE Labs 
article by my colleague Angela:
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/angela_dallara/how-we-will-be-following-up-with-invalid-abuse-contacts

We understand that it is frustrating when contact information in the 
RIPE Database turns out not to work.
You can always report such incorrect contact information to the RIPE NCC 
and we will follow up to have it corrected.
https://www.ripe.net/contact-form

I hope this clarifies your question.

Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt
Policy Officer
RIPE NCC


On 04/03/2019 22:55, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Sorry folks, when this topic was discussed, I confess that I wasn't
> really paying much attention.  So now I am forced to ask:  Was someone
> going to verify the abuse contact addresses listed in the RIPE WHOIS
> data base?
>
> If so, how is that project coming along?
>
> I'll tell you why I ask.  It's quite simple really.  Some jerk, probably
> Mexican, just sent me a spam wherein he was advertising for sale his
> list of 18 million "business" email addreses.  (I can't quite tell if
> those are all supposed to be specifically Mexican email addrses or what...
> because the spam was written in Spanish, and I don't speak Spanish.)
>
>      https://pastebin.com/raw/dT11krpN
>
> Note that the specific email address of mine that was spammed was one that
> I only used in ancient times, and only in conjunction with my activities
> on one specific web site.  (It obviously leaked somehow.)
>
> The envelope sender address was forged to be my own.
>
> The source IP was 109.68.33.19 as you can see.  So naturally, I performed
> a RIPE WHOIS query on that IP address and the results I got back indicated
> that the contact email address for spam reports was <abuse at meshdigital.com>.
> So I emailed off a report to that address.
>
> Of course, it bounced back to me immediately as undeliverable.
>
> This causes me to suspect that either (a) that stuff that I thought that
> I has seen previously about a project to verify abuse addresses was all
> just a bunch of malarkey, or else (b) that project is still unfinished
> and perhaps not going all that well.
>
> Could someone please enlighten me and tell me which possibility actually
> applies?
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
>
> P.s.   It is annoying enough to have to lookup who the bleep should
> receive a report about spamming from their network _and_ to have to
> even write such reports, when 9 time sout of ten, the sending network
> could have easly prevented the spam from even going out.  It is just
> adding insult to injury when the bloody "official" abuse reporting
> address doesn't even actually exist.
>
> And of course, neither meshdigital.com nor meshdigital.net even have
> functioning web sites.
>
> Apparently this is all the work of some dolts at a company called heg.com,
> in Germany.  Do any of you happen to know any of the clueless nitwits
> who work there?  If so, maybe you could put me in direct touch so that
> I could personally apply a much needed clue-by-four.
>