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

Am 10.11.2010 15:06, schrieb Marco Hogewoning:
>>> 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.

Imho wrong. It takes a away confusion.

One mandatory place for abuse contact information.
That is it. Nothing more, nothing less.

That is the main intention of this proposal.

Imho you and Leo Vegoda are mixing up the data quality and the work
quality. Data quality judges the quality and the accuracy of the data
given in the object and has absolutely nothing to do with the abuse work
done behind the email address.

We will never be able to judge the quality of abuse handling work by the
existence or non-existence of an object.


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/f22f6282/attachment.sig>