nanog mailing list archives
Re: Abuse Desks
From: Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:55:22 -0400
Well, I think our disagreement is on what we constitute 'legitimate abuse' to be. On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 1:51 PM Mukund Sivaraman <muks () mukund org> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 01:49:14PM -0400, Tom Beecher wrote:What if I am at home, and while working on a project, fire off a wide ranging nmap against say a /19 work network to validate something externally? Should my ISP detect that and make a decision that Ishouldn'tbe doing that, even though it is completely legitimate and authorized activity? What if I fat fingered a digit and accidentally ran that same scan against someone else's /19? Should that accidental destination of non-malicious scans be able to file an abuse report against me and get my service disconnected because they didn't like it? Abuse departments should be properly handling LEGITIMATE abusecomplaints.Not crufty background noise traffic that is never going away.Sure. Handling legitimate abuse complaints would be quite sufficient. :) Mukund
Current thread:
- Re: Abuse Desks, (continued)
- Re: Abuse Desks Sabri Berisha (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Mukund Sivaraman (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Stephen Satchell (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Mike Hammett (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Stephen Satchell (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Mike Hammett (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Matt Corallo via NANOG (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Mukund Sivaraman (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Tom Beecher (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Mukund Sivaraman (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Tom Beecher (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Laszlo Hanyecz (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Brian J. Murrell (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Mukund Sivaraman (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Mel Beckman (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Matt Corallo via NANOG (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Matt Corallo via NANOG (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks William Herrin (Apr 29)
- Re: Abuse Desks Matt Corallo via NANOG (Apr 29)