This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Privacy requirements, was Spam FAQs
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Privacy requirements, was Spam FAQs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alessandro Vesely
vesely at tana.it
Sat Dec 17 13:23:34 CET 2011
On 16/Dec/11 22:32, russ at consumer.net wrote: > Security and privacy are things that need to be balanced so it is > not off-topic to discuss privacy requirements for abuse systems. The subject is on topic indeed. It has various facets, including unlimited access to abuse-mailboxes, anonymity of IP delegations, and possibly even redaction of spam complaints. For IP numbers, a privacy requirement is necessary to avoid tracking users. However, there has to be an exception for mail delivery (not submission). IIRC there is an exception for e-commerce, that limits a merchant's right to anonymity. Likewise, mail servers shouldn't be allowed to be anonymous. Most EU concerns are discussed within the coordination-wg, though. So I'm not clear on the worthiness of having this discussion here. jm2c
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Privacy requirements, was Spam FAQs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]