Re: [apops] Fwd: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-2: Network Abuse]
- To: suresh at outblaze dot com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
- Subject: Re: [apops] Fwd: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-2: Network Abuse]
- From: Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:01:53 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: bmanning@ISI.EDU, apops at apops dot net
- In-reply-to: <22.214.171.124.0.20030305171647.01cf5280 at imap.team dot outblaze dot com> from Suresh Ramasubramanian at "Mar 5, 3 05:23:52 pm"
- List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apops/>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: Asia Pacific Operations Forum <apops.apops.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apops>,<mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apops>,<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- Sender: email@example.com
% >% >2. All networks should [regardless of geographical location] provide % >% >a valid e-mail contact for network [NOC@] and abuse [Abuse@] contact. % >% >Make it standard. % > % > and this will be more useful than the currently required % > postmaster and root accounts -how-? % % And, do the postmaster and root accounts exist in all places? :) They are -required- per IETF standards. and they exist in most places but are generally ignored. % Not my proposal btw - I'm just forwarding it. sure. understood. % However, the more role accounts exist, the better the chance that at least % someone around will read and respond to a complaint on net abuse / spam. not in my 25 years of experience. % A forlorn hope, I fear - given the state several networks are in :( actually, more accounts tends to a less secure environment. :) % % > couple of issues with this. % > ) many delegations predate RIR creation. there is -no- % > ) RIRs don;t route. ISPs do. "Terminated" IP ranges don't make % > sense here. % % Yeah I know it is dumb - and I didn't draft it, just forwarded it. % % I know about legacy delegations ... and the fact that ISPs are the ones who % route. But the point this guy wants to make (I think) - and I agree with % it - is that an alternative can (or rather should) be worked out to tackle % the huge problem that bogus whois data is becoming, even with the current % procedures in place. why is there whois data in the first place? % % > This one is so fraught with legal hairballs that it % > is almost funny. If you are in the US, can you say % > RICO... sure you can. In europe, I think EC privacy % % RICO is the *first* thing that gets suggested when this sort of thing comes % up. However, those who do propound this idea (in a far more sensible / % detailed manner than the stuff above) want something on the lines of a % credit bureau for ISPs, maintaining histories of potential % customers. After all, if CC companies can (under heavy regulation) track % deadbeat debtors, there is no particular reason why spammers can't be % tracked either. ah... just what the net needs, more government regulation. which government? --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).