[anti-abuse-wg] abuse email address validation - VOTE

Frank,

On Saturday, 2012-04-14 16:07:19 +0200,
Frank Gadegast <ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de> wrote:
> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > in which case we are wasting time
> 
> not at all.
> 
> its true that RIPE NCC neither has the staff nor the mandate
> to validate objects. RIPE NCC will always tell the complainant
> to try contacting the abuser and will never do anything else,
> simply because they dont have to (thats why all those forms
> are pretty useless).
> 
> SO the question is, if the community wants the NCC to make more.
> 
> There are little things the NCC could do and wont need extra staff,

It's not inconceivable that the RIPE NCC could implement manual checks.
(I think APNIC actually already has staff that follow up to correct
contact information.) If these were done only when a problem is
reported it could be hundreds of checks per year, not thousands;
probably an extra 2 or 3 staff, so only increasing the RIPE NCC's
operating budget by a few percent.

Such a policy wouldn't satisfy people concerned with intentional abuse,
but it is a necessary step. 

Personally I support both automated methods of checking contact
information (like you propose) and manual methods of checking and
updating contact information. I'm not sure how easy it would be to get
consensus though. :)

--
Shane