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

Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
>

Hi Leo,

> On Nov 10, 2010, at 6:13 AM, Tobias Knecht wrote:
>
> […]
>
>> 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.
>
> I must not have written sufficiently clearly as you appear to have misunderstood me. I am not arguing that you can judge the quality of abuse handling by the presence or absence of the appropriate information in the database. I am arguing that its presence can help you judge the willingness of a network operators to take the reports seriously.

Only if you make it not mandatory.
But not making it mandatory stops you from having a contact for every
IP, and that will keep the chaos we currently have.
If there is no IRT object, you will still look through the whois,
if there is another contact, and those whois lookups are restricted.

And detecting the quality by the absence of an IRT object does not
work anyway, because every member could decide to keep the remarks
or the abuse-mailbox-field like it is.
It just says nothing, if a member can decide not to have an IRT
object, so it HAS to be mandytory anyway.

And you cannot prove the reachability of this address, if
its not mandatory, making the 09 proposal impossible, what
is the logical next step.

You can check, if the members are taking reports seriously, much better,
if there is an email coming back after complaining, but you need
a working address for that first !

> I see the problem as a social one: many people do not want to receive reports or investigate them if they do.

So they will probably send them to /dev/null
and there will be no response.
But who cares ?
I dont.
As long as I can say:
"the member got my complaint to the address he published".

Or they (if they are really eval :o) will setup a ticket system
AND respond to RIPEs test mails.

But then you finally can detect the following:

spam rates usually drop for ranges, where the member IS taking care.
This will not happen for spammer friendly or lazy admins.

And that would make things pretty clear.

> Your proposal would make it mandatory for people to publish abuse contact information but would do nothing to actually make people take the reports seriously. As such, I do not see it as significant element in making things better. Instead, I see it as a way of making lots of people do some extra administration that is unlikely to achieve anything significant.
>
> Making things better will require the people running the networks to *want* to make things better. Unless you can come up with a proposal to change people's minds about taking abuse reports seriously I don't think this proposal can add any significant value. I suggest starting with solving the social element before moving on to a piece of mandatory mass administration exercise.

I personally do not care, if I have more work in publishing correct 
abuse data, if there is the chance to delivered reports more
accurate and if there is the possibility the detect good from
"not-so-good" admins.

I will have to invest much less work for the publishing then
to program our whois parsers and check a lot of things
manually.

This proposal will SAVE me at lot of time !

I personally do not like to send reports to non-responsible
persons, that another way of spamming. With that proposal I
can be sure, that I got the responsible one, and thats a big step
forward ...


Kind regards, Frank

> Regards,
>
> Leo Vegoda
>
>


-- 

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
--
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
======================================================================