[186621] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: de-peering for security sake
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (TR Shaw)
Fri Dec 25 17:41:23 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: TR Shaw <tshaw@oitc.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D0907C4-2976-416D-81CE-B42D7389400F@mnsi.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2015 17:41:19 -0500
To: Clayton Zekelman <clayton@mnsi.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
ARF (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5965.txt =
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5965.txt>, =
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6650.txt) and X-ARF =
(http://www.x-arf.org/index.html <http://www.x-arf.org/index.html>) are =
used quite alot and many, like Yahoo, only accept ARF reports on abusive =
emails.
you might want to read MAAWG=E2=80=99s BCP: =
https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/document/M3AAWG_Feedback_Report=
ing_Recommendation_BP-2014-02.pdf =
<https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/document/M3AAWG_Feedback_Repor=
ting_Recommendation_BP-2014-02.pdf>
Tom
> On Dec 25, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Clayton Zekelman <clayton@mnsi.net> =
wrote:
>=20
> Just an off the cuff thought but if the format of the abuse messages =
could be standardized so handling them would be semi-automated somewhat =
like ACNS notices, it might improve response.
>=20
> Maybe such a format already exists and just isn't widely used.
>=20
> Sent from my iPhone
>=20
>> On Dec 25, 2015, at 4:52 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015, Colin Johnston wrote:
>>>=20
>>> why do the chinese network folks never reply and action abuse =
reports, normal slow speed network abuse is tolerated, but not high =
speed deliberate abuse albeit compromised machines
>>=20
>> This is not a chinese problem, this is a general ISP problem. Most =
ISPs do not respond to abuse reports.
>>=20
>> --=20
>> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
