mel at beckman.org
Wed Apr 29 15:43:46 UTC 2020
In fact, SRonan, the real risk of such a standard is that people would use it to send an increasingly massive flood of pointless abuse reports, which would require deployment of an equally massive AI-based data analytics to cull the flood, which would then be Skynet :)
> On Apr 29, 2020, at 8:40 AM, mel at beckman.org wrote:
> If only such a standard were feasible :)
> -mel beckman
>> On Apr 29, 2020, at 8:25 AM, "sronan at ronan-online.com" <sronan at ronan-online.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps some organization of Network Operators should come up with an objective standard of what constitutes “abuse” and a standard format for reporting it.
>> If only there was such an organization.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> On Apr 29, 2020, at 11:14 AM, Chris Adams <cma at cmadams.net> wrote:
>>> Once upon a time, Mukund Sivaraman <muks at mukund.org> said:
>>>> If an abuse report is incorrect, then it is fair to complain.
>>> The thing is: are 3 failed SSH logins from an IP legitimately "abuse"?
>>> I've typoed IP/FQDN before and gotten an SSH response, and taken several
>>> tries before I realized my error. Did I actually "abuse" someone's
>>> server? I didn't get in, and it's hard to say that the server resources
>>> I used with a few failed tries were anything more than negligible.
>>> I've had users tripped up by fail2ban because they were trying to access
>>> a server they don't use often and took several tries to get the password
>>> right or had the wrong SSH key. Should that have triggered an abuse
>>> Chris Adams <cma at cmadams.net>
More information about the NANOG