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

>> As Leo said yesterday. At the moment, if you encounter an IRT, this
>> is somewhat an indication those guys (or gals) take it seriously and
>> so you can expect the data to be correct and the people behind it
>> responsive. To a certain point the same goes for the abuse-mailbox
>> attribute. The single that people actually added this optional
>> attribute means at least the spent some time thinking about it.
> 
> I disagree here. We see loads of wrong addresses in the abuse-mailbox
> attributes. We do not see loads of them in IRT, because 280 IRT objects
> do not give us a huge data base.
> 
> And again, you can not judge "only" on the fact, that something is
> existing or not. We see as well loads of abuse@ addresses being
> published in abuse-mailbox attributes blocking incoming spam reports
> because the filter says  "This is spam!".
> 
> In my opinion and I have seen other people here suggesting the same
> things, if we are thinking about reputation, we have to think about
> several levels of reputation.
> 
> If the IRT object would be mandatory:
> 
> We could differentiate between networks having an IRT Object in place
> and the networks that do not have them in place. --> Policy Ignorant

That's about the same as it is now...policy ignorant or uneducated. Insert Hanlon's razor here. So this proposal doesn't change a thing.

Groet,

MarcoH