[anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)

>> Some ISPs in Europe are already using this as a greylisting reason.
> 
> I assume you're referring to email?

Right.

> If so, why is that a problem?

If you want to judge on the existence of the IRT if somebody is doing
abuse handling or not you should not make the IRT mandatory. That was
Leo Vegoda saying.

As soon as people will decide to do so and add the existence of an IRT
to their reputation metrics, there is pressure and pushed by this
pressure people will create IRT Objects, but not with the intent to do a
good abuse job, but with the intent of deliverability.

So imo this is no reason to make the IRT not mandatory.

Thanks,

Tobias

abusix.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20101110/20d937e4/attachment.sig>