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

Jørgen Hovland wrote:
>
>
> On 11/10/10 14:31, Frank Gadegast wrote:
>>
>> ???
>>
>> So you dont receive or send abuse emails ?
>
> Of course I do. I have the honor of deleting automated lawyertreats and
> "that guy is really, really mean and I really hate him"-messages from my
> inbox every day. I even received a personal threat recently because the
> complainer had a fatal error on their system.
>
>> Or you are such a good programmer that you can handle the current
>> "spread" of abuse contacts in whois ?
>>
>
> I can read english and a few other languages, but I am not ordinary Joe.
> This thread has more or less become a discussion about the need to send
> complaints as fast as possible without the need of thinking or taking
> any considerations or precautions. You want everyone to have a huge
> button that says complain and you want to click on it as many times as
> you want because you are so darn angry. I however, want a button that
> says "stop whining, click here to play Angry bird instead".

Thats your estimation, but not my intention :o)

I simply want ONE clearly defined contact instead of the messy
whois we currentyl have.

I even somtimes have complains from ISPs that WANT reports,
that we did not fetch the right abuse address from whois,
what happens from time to time, if its really hidden in strange
format somewere in the remarks ...

arin's abuse-c is much nicer and less confusing for everybody.
And because APNIc is witching to IRT, RIPE should do this two
or select another clear way, maybe LACNIC, Afrinic and the others
are following ...

> Back to the topic: IRT yes, mandatory no. And that's mainly because of
> the word mandatory and that it would probably lead to more complaints.
> To be perfectly honest I don't even believe everyone should be entitled
> to complain.
> Real abuse issues usually gets through anyway.

Not at all.
We report all spam our customers receive.
All password-checking, sniffing and DDoS-Attacks and we automated
or half-automated most of it.

And we currently:
- cannot find the abuse address without mistakes
- cannot be sure that our complaint reached the one beeing officially
   responsible (simply because he filed the mandatory field or object)
- and cannot detect if the receiver is not interested, lazy or
   spammer friendly, out of office or whatsoever

And this is simply because there is no mandatory field ...


Kind regards, Frank
--
PHADE Software - PowerWeb                       http://www.powerweb.de
Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast             mailto:frank at powerweb.de
Schinkelstrasse 17                                fon: +49 33200 52920
14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany             fax: +49 33200 52921
======================================================================