> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> in which case we are wasting time
> not at all.
> its true that RIPE NCC neither has the staff nor the mandate
> to validate objects. RIPE NCC will always tell the complainant
> to try contacting the abuser and will never do anything else,
> simply because they dont have to (thats why all those forms
> are pretty useless).
> SO the question is, if the community wants the NCC to make more.
> There are little things the NCC could do and wont need extra staff,
> simple checks could be programmed and automated, like:
> (ordered from very simple to more complicated)
> - check if there is any email address for every object
> (my preferred ISP is surely telecomitalia.it or
> all those lovely ERX allocations we constantly get spam
> from, the only email address you can find is the one
> in the changed-by field)
> - validate the syntax of the abuse email address
> (like: firstname.lastname@example.org... I always fall over)
> - check the domain, MX or A record of the domain
> (like the ones from online.kz, lovely :o)
> - check the availablity of those mailservers
> (my favorite is currently airtel.in, wich have
> severe internal problems, but thats not RIPE, ok)
> this will:
> - make the ISPs more aware of the problem
> - make them check their objects more regulary
> - kick out the entries that are really stupid
> I would call these basic validation checks, there
> are simple to implementent and do not cost anything.
> So: does the community want that to be implemented ?
> And: what could be done to fix those ?
> RIPE NCC has internal email addresses to contact
> there members, so a request to fix objects
> could be mail to those ...
> Furthermore the NCC could
> - send testmails to the email address and
> evaluate the return mails
> - send emails including a link to click
> More complicated, will probably cost something and
> will stress all members.
> So: does the community want those two to be implemented ?
> Kind regards, Frank
> > and effort having this discussion, and regulatory compliance is probably the only thing that will produce a viable course of action
>> --srs (iPad)
>> On 14-Apr-2012, at 17:59, Karl-Josef Ziegler<kjz@gmx....> wrote:
>>>> The different pieces of contact information are all potential ways to
>>>> get in touch with the Internet number resource holder. If you have
>>>> difficulties reaching them via any of those details, you can report this
>>>> to us. I would recommend making a reasonable attempt to contact them
>>>> first though, for example by giving them a phone call if you find that
>>>> their email addresses are no longer working.
>>> My experience: I've used the form because the email contacts from a
>>> provider in Romania were invalid. The phone contact given in the RIPE
>>> database was only a mobile phone number in Romania. I searched for this
>>> number in the web and only get a few results which all directed to the
>>> entry in the RIPE database. So it seems that this (prepaid?) phone was
>>> only used to register this IP space with RIPE.
>>> My claim was denied because I didn't made an attempt to contact the
>>> provider on mobile phone in Romania. I didn't contact them because I
>>> don't speak Romanian and I feared retaliation from possible criminals in
>>> Romania. So for an individual it may be very difficult to fulfill all
>>> the external requirements which are made by RIPE NCC. And, of course,
>>> RIPE may be in a better position to repel retaliations.
>>> RIPE NCC wrote back that they don't have the staff to check if the
>>> entries in the database are correct. So if RIPE will guarantee the
>>> validity of the database today they seem not to have the personal
>>> capacity for research.
>>> Best regards,
>>> - Karl-Josef Ziegler
> Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
> PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de > Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powe... > Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920
> 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921