[ncc-services-wg] RE: [local-ir at ripe.net]Re: AP2005 New Activities
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Tue Jul 27 16:21:21 CEST 2004
>> > 7) Deployment of Anti-SPAM Measures and SPAM Abuse Policies >> > >> > The RIPE NCC will deploy technical facilities to minimise the effect >> > of SPAM and SPAM abuse towards the RIPE NCC and the mailing >>lists it provides for members and the RIPE community. >> >>The abuse-c database work might as well be done under this heading, >>or it might be under its own heading, but as far as I understand, >>it's not listed anywhere here ? Given the current mandate and operational track record of the Anti-Spam WG, I don't think this is the right place to put it (exclusively). While I am aware that a large number of parties tends to equate "abuse" with spam, there are other groups and temas which have a pretty different definition of what network-"abuse" (as opposed to service-/application-abuse) or an "incident" is. >>If RIPE has for some reason choosen to abstain from abuse coordination Abuse (def.?) *coordination* is out of scope for the NCC (as we known it today!) from my point of view. Many years ago there was an attempt to develop such a function in (or alongside) the NCC, which failed miserably - due to lack of support by the RIPE NCC's customer base. Nowadays this niche has been filled in many places, and in different ways, by entities which do not have a close relationship with the NCC or the (registration) services the NCC offers. Trying to retrofit that might prove difficult. >>issues, can you point me into some direction which *does* correlate >>IP to contact information, hopefully under a global scale ? The 4(5) address registries. As long as there is not even consensus to put all relevant registry information into those _central_ repositories for public consumption (rwhois is your enemy ;-), I cannot see how the NCC should try to implement a (reliable?) service on a global scale. As an additional aspect, even within the NCC's service region (or the expanded EU for that matter), there is no uniform framework which satisifies the requirements of both sides in the game: the privacy requirements and the investigative requirements. As an aside, these aspects could be food for thought for the (or a renamed) Anti-Spam WG (and/or the ENISA being set up right now ;-) >>Which is the reason for RIPE to keep away from this ? > >We have not actively decided "to keep away from it", rather we have not >seen strong demand for the RIPE NCC to become active in this area. > >I hope that I have answered your questions sufficiently and look >forward to any further discussion. > >kind regards, > >Axel Pawlik Best regards, Wilfried.