A standard would be nice. In some of the auto-responders, I get requirements that conflict or are unreasonable. * We don't accept abuse complaints via e-mail, please submit via this site: Yeah, okay. That's not scaleable. * Network A wants time in GMT, while network B wants time in their local timezone. How do I know that ahead of time? Adjusting for that isn't scaleable Some are asking for my IP address. Okay, I get that if you have CGNAT running, you need to know that to check your logs. Now I gotta figure out how to get my IP address into the log. Many of the devices watched have more than one IP address. Having a standard would make generation of reports and processing of said reports a lot easier to automate. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: sronan@ronan-online.com To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 10:25:19 AM Subject: Re: Abuse Desks 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@cmadams.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, Mukund Sivaraman <muks@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 email?
-- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>