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

Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Hi Frank,

Hi,

>> 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.
>
> I disagree. Right now, creating an IRT object tells you that people know what they are doing because they need to jump through hoops.

No, it tells you nothing about the intention.
I know, that spammers do everything to stay undetected, their records, 
objects, domains, SPF-records, reverse-mappings and everything else,
what could be used to detect them, is often of much better quality
then regular and big IPs ;o)

> I do not understand in one automatic system sending a message and another automatic system deleting it without a human intervening at any point. Maybe I am missing something but that just seems like a waste to me.

Not at all, they cannot say, that they did not know about the problem
anymore.
This is very important for any legal action or even complaining to
their upstream provider or LIR ...

For me its also a real argument to my customers, why I block some
ranges, because I can prove, that they were informed and still
did not do anything.
I can simply call them "spam-friendly provider" ;o)

>> 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 ...
>
> I think you are conflating two things: a single syntax for publishing abuse contact information and making it mandatory.
>
> You can alter the database syntax rules to have a just one official way of publishing abuse contact information but that won't stop people putting data in comments, too. And it certainly won't stop them updating the comments and not the (possibly bogus) address any the official publication place.
>
> Having automated systems send each other e-mails that are never read or acted upon does not make sense. For that reason, I would suggest work goes in to efforts to explain why it is bad to host abusive systems rather than into lots of make-work that will have little actual impact.

See above.


Kind regards, Frank

>
> Regards,
>
> Leo
>
>
>


-- 

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
======================================================================
Public PGP Key available for frank at powerweb.de