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] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Frank Gadegast
ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de
Tue Nov 29 10:05:12 CET 2011
Adrian wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:19:31AM +0100, Frank Gadegast wrote: > > Hi, Hi, >> A "migration plan" cannot be located in a proposal, because it heavily >> depends on the work of the RIPE NCC and a plan include dates (to my >> understanding) wich shouldnt end up in a proposal. > > Lets say order the relevant technical processes should be included in this proposal (Some might call this a plan). Agreed. >>>> Another point: if the general idea of the policy is acceptable, wouldn't >>>> it be nice to have 2 abuse mailboxes: one for humans, one for bots? >>> >>> +1; >> >> Having two contacts might complicates things, it might be complicated >> for the end user to decide wich one to contact. >> >> Maybe it would be easier to make one contact wich has to be marked >> as "person", "role" or "robot". >> Both, end user or automatic reporting tools, could then decide themself, >> if the type of the contact fits their intention. >> It might also be nice to have a "preferred reporting method" field >> included, what could be "email, phone, url, ARF, X-ARF" or similar. > > What if the people or robots reporting to such an address, don't care about robot vs. human mailboxes and/or relevant reporting formats (or are reporting bogus due to bugs)? I would suggest, that every team/member/robot behind such an address should figure that for themselves. Also agreed, I recommend a "preferred" reporting method field, what should improve the reporting accuracy (we often receive emails back, wich simply includes a link to an online form, this could be shorted, when the URL is already included in the field). Surely its not 100%. Kind regards, Frank > > Cheers, Adrian > > > > -- 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
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]