[address-policy-wg] 2006-04 Draft Document will be produced (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)

Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
> Denis Walker wrote:
>
> [...]
>   
>> ... If you feel this
>> should have a higher priority then you may raise the issue on the Database
>> Working Group or Antispam Working Group or Address Policy Working Group
>> mailing lists."
>>     
>
> My feeling is that the only appropriate one is the AP-WG - if at all.
>   
we can easily change this if the AP-WG is considered to be the best
place to raise such issues.
> Anti-Spam seems to be a niche market, looking at the number of different
> abusive behaviour patterns, and DB-WG usually looks at issues regarding
> the tools and the registration machinery.
>
> In particular, DB-WG is very reluctant to get drawn into (human) resource
> allocation (i.e. money :-) ) discussions...
>
> Wilfried.
>
> PS: I know I am not making new friends with the following text, but still:
> Spam is not a network or addressing problem - it is an application and
> socio-economic problem. Now shoot - you know where to find me :-)
>   
I think we are confusing two seperate issues here. Spam itself is a
socio-economic-political problem. How to stop spam is outside the scope
of network operations and addressing policy issues. But the issue here
is if I can identify an individual spammer who is causing me problems
who should I contact to try to have this person/organisation
disconnected? This ties into the whole discussion on the irt object and
abuse-mailbox: attributes. Even if we get this part exactly right, if
the final email address we present to someone is invalid then the whole
system breaks down.

This brings us back to the question of how to enforce a policy that says
everyone should keep their contact details up to date. I know it is a
difficult question, but until it is addressed the whole policy on abuse
handling fails.

regards
Denis Walker
Software Engineering Department
RIPE NCC