[191596] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: PlayStationNetwork blocking of CGNAT public addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Thu Sep 22 10:30:56 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:56:18 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
To: Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc>,
Brian Rak <brak@gameservers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9Qcx5JZXEWmaiHata6THnqh4ZOKO26OdOLYLh3V_yqMbD1ng@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Well yes =E2=80=93 if you have the automation, that is great.
=20
Of course the format of whatever log they send you matters too.
=20
I=E2=80=99ve had abuse complaints in a past life where the abuse report was a scr=
eenshot from a checkpoint firewall with =E2=80=9CDear team, for your attention=E2=80=9D =
in bright red in a large font.
=20
Personally I don=E2=80=99t trash abuse reports that are valid.
=20
--srs
=20
From: Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc>
Date: Thursday, 22 September 2016 at 7:35 PM
To: Brian Rak <brak@gameservers.com>
Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@=
nanog.org>
Subject: Re: PlayStationNetwork blocking of CGNAT public addresses
=20
The format of the abuse complaint doesn't mean anything if it still doesn't=
contain any relevant data to say what the abuse IS. (Or, even if it IS abus=
e at all.)
=20
=20
=20
=20
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Brian Rak <brak@gameservers.com> wrote:
Single IP per email: automated, zero time at all.
Multiple IPs per email: manual process, minutes per IP.
On 9/22/2016 9:34 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Considering that there are likely to be many such emails - just how much ti=
me is it going to take your abuse desk staffer to just parse out those IPs f=
rom whatever log that they send you?
And how much time would processing say 50 individual emails take compared t=
o 50 IPs in a single email?
--srs
On 22-Sep-2016, at 6:58 PM, Brian Rak <brak@gameservers.com <mailto:brak@ga=
meservers.com>> wrote:
We've also started ignoring their abuse emails, for the same reason. Their=
abuse emails at one point contained the line:
> P.S. If you would prefer an individual email for each IP address on this =
list, please let us know.
But, they didn't respond after we contacted them requesting it (and that li=
ne has since been removed).
=20
=20
