Subject: Re: New USEPRO path-identity text

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:02:43 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>You want to complain about it. Supposing that RFC 2142 is all you have to
>go on, and supposing that there is no mail-complaints-to in the
>Injection-Info, what then is the correct abuse@ address to use, and why?

If I were completely ignorant, I'd try: [email-masked]. If
that bounces, [email-masked]. If that bounces, [email-masked]. If
that bounces, a traceroute to wapping and an email to the admin contact
for the site upstream from the first man.ac.uk telling them they have a
client who is in violation of RFCs for the network and that they ought to
be cut off until they play by the rules.

But the correct answer is [email-masked]. Because they are in charge of
the man.ac.uk domain, duh! And if they've delegated to anyone below them,
they know who and can do something about it.

It really ain't that hard, Charles. 

Can you justify a mandate over and above RFC2142 or not? If so, please do.
If no, remove it.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:23:41 GMT

>they know who and can do something about it.

OK, I am going to wait until I see what Frank thinks is the correct answer
before responding (and there is still time for others to play).

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: Richard Clayton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 23:18:03 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>, Charles Lindsey
<[email-masked]> writes

>>>Supposing that RFC 2142 is all you have to
>>>go on, 

that's hardly realistic is it, there's lots of ways of working these
things out

>>>and supposing that there is no mail-complaints-to in the

myself, I'd use

        [email-masked]

reason to be found at:

<URL:http://www.ripe.net/whois?form_type=simple&full_query_string=&searc
htext=130.88.198.1>

the IP address having come from a recent DNS check

>>the man.ac.uk domain, duh! 

often pointless complaining to the domain owner, start with the "ISP"

>>And if they've delegated to anyone below them,

looking upwards rather than down is usually wiser

>before responding (and there is still time for others to play).

Good Game!   does it have a point ?

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:53:16 GMT

>that's hardly realistic is it,

Indeed not, but some here are arguing that RFC 2142 should be followed to
the letter, and the RFC 2142 on its own contains all that needs to be said
on the subject.

What I am trying to show is that RFC 2142 does not give clear enough
directions, and therefore it would be better to decide exctly what we want
and write that into our draft.

>        [email-masked]

OK, so the three people who have answered have given three different
answers:
    [email-masked]
    [email-masked]
    [email-masked]
which does tend to support my contention that some clear statement in our
draft is needed.

><URL:http://www.ripe.net/whois?form_type=simple&full_query_string=&searc

   Please email [email-masked]' for ALL cases of abuse or security
   issues. Emails to admin or tech individuals regarding abuse may go
   unanswered.

So there is one respected institution that totally ignores RFC 2142 :-( .

>>>the man.ac.uk domain, duh! 

Looks like that one might "go unanswered" :-) .

>often pointless complaining to the domain owner, start with the "ISP"

Ah! But which IS the "ISP" (I might argue for [email-masked] on that basis)?

>Good Game!   does it have a point ?

I think the point is thaFrom [email-masked] Mon Jul 18 10:04:41 2005
To: [email-masked]
Xref: clerew local.usefor:22008
Newsgroups: local.usefor
Path: clerew!chl
From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: New USEPRO path-identity text
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:53:16 GMT
Lines: 79
Sender: [email-masked]

>that's hardly realistic is it,

Indeed not, but some here are arguing that RFC 2142 should be followed to
the letter, and the RFC 2142 on its own contains all that needs to be said
on the subject.

What I am trying to show is that RFC 2142 does not give clear enough
directions, and therefore it would be better to decide exctly what we want
and write that into our draft.

>        [email-masked]

OK, so the three people who have answered have given three different
answers:
    [email-masked]
    [email-masked]
    [email-masked]
which does tend to support my contention that some clear statement in our
draft is needed.

><URL:http://www.ripe.net/whois?form_type=simple&full_query_string=&searc

   Please email [email-masked]' for ALL cases of abuse or security
   issues. Emails to admin or tech individuals regarding abuse may go
   unanswered.

So there is one respected institution that totally ignores RFC 2142 :-( .

>>>the man.ac.uk domain, duh! 

Looks like that one might "go unanswered" :-) .

>often pointless complaining to the domain owner, start with the "ISP"

Ah! But which IS the "ISP" (I might argue for [email-masked] on that basis)?

>Good Game!   does it have a point ?

I think the point is that net-savvy people, such as you find on this list,
can probably look at a domain name and form a pretty good opinion, just
from their general knowledge of the conventions used to construct domain
names, as to what is going on (and even then, they come up with different
results).

But for an innocent who does not even recognise that it is an academic
institution, and that "cs" stands for "computer science", and who has never
heard of 'whois' or 'nslookup', you need a simple rule that anybody can
apply, such as "look at what appears in the Injection-Info, or in front of
the 'POSTED' in the Path, and stick "abuse@" in front of it.

---

From: Richard Clayton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:46:11 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>, Charles Lindsey
<[email-masked]> writes

>OK, so the three people who have answered have given three different

all of which will reach within one hop of whoever should deal with the
problem...

>which does tend to support my contention that some clear statement in our

which suggests that not a lot is broken here

>So there is one respected institution that totally ignores RFC 2142 :-( .

they would only be "ignoring" 2142 if they failed to accept email to
abuse@   and I see nothing in their statement suggesting this to be so

>Ah! But which IS the "ISP" (I might argue for [email-masked] on that basis)?

I would expect that to work just fine as well ... there's an MX record
for ac.uk (goes to a JANET host, and I expect Rodney and his team would
be able to use their local knowledge of the *.ac.uk space to work out a
suitable contact in Manchester to discuss the problem with).  So this
isn't broken either

>names, as to what is going on (and even then, they come up with different

and for the others surely we're hoping that there will be another header
line specifically relating to where to send complaints to assist them  ?

>the 'POSTED' in the Path, and stick "abuse@" in front of it.

well, since most of the simple-minded rules -- such as you propose --
seem to work just fine for your exotic example, I don't see that this is
something to sweat over

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:27:23 GMT

>line specifically relating to where to send complaints to assist them  ?

We are indeed "hoping", but that is not to say that news injectors will
actually do it :-( . Maybe they will say "no need to provide a
mail-complaints-to parameter in Injection-Info because we already provide
abuse@ the standard place (or what we _think_ is the standard place)".

>seem to work just fine for your exotic example, I don't see that this is

Exactly. If we write the "simple minded rules" into the draft, then
everybody will know exactly what is expected of them.