[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sérgio Rocha
sergio.rocha at makeitsimple.pt
Sat May 18 01:37:07 CEST 2019
> ===== > c. Alignment with other RIRs: > A similar proposal has been accepted in APNIC (being implemented) and is under discussion in the LACNIC, AFRINIC and ARIN regions. > ===== > > i.e. 1 region on track, 4 still to go (RIPE included here). So it looks that this proposal it's not so avant-garde, since the other regions are having the same needs and one of them already include this policy -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Friaças [mailto:cfriacas at fccn.pt] Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2019 0:06 AM To: Sérgio Rocha <sergio.rocha at makeitsimple.pt> Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") On Sat, 18 May 2019, S�rgio Rocha wrote: > We belong to this group: " Some people are really thankful when they > receive a notice and they understand they have something to fix. :-)" > And we would be more happy if we have sure that all the abuse contacts > are real, at least in RIPE region. About the "at least in RIPE region", there is text on 2019-04 about that: ===== c. Alignment with other RIRs: A similar proposal has been accepted in APNIC (being implemented) and is under discussion in the LACNIC, AFRINIC and ARIN regions. ===== i.e. 1 region on track, 4 still to go (RIPE included here). Cheers, Carlos > S�rgio Rocha > > > -----Original Message----- > From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf > Of Carlos Fria�as via anti-abuse-wg > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 23:52 PM > To: Taras Heichenko <tasic at hostmaster.ua> > Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation > of > "abuse-mailbox") > > > > On Fri, 17 May 2019, Taras Heichenko wrote: > >>> My team has nearly sent out 6000 abuse reports (only about intrusion > attempts and brute force attacks) since Jan 1st this year. >>> I've just checked, and only 2.5% bounced. 2018's bounces were around > 4.5%. >> >> Did you calculate percentage of deliberate reactions to your abuse > reports? > > No, not yet. > > >> What is main purpose to deliver letter without problem or to get > deliberate reaction to it? > > We assume some of the nasty stuff we see comes from infected devices. > If legitimate owners care to desinfect, it's possible we will receive > less events... i.e. everyone should be sending out more notices. Some > people are really thankful when they receive a notice and they > understand they have something to fix. :-) > > > Carlos > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]