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] abuse email address validation - VOTE
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] abuse email address validation - VOTE
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] abuse email address validation - VOTE
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Frank Gadegast
ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de
Sat Apr 14 22:46:53 CEST 2012
Shane Kerr wrote: > Frank, > > > 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. Im not talking about manual checks, those are automatic checks. All checks I described are automatic checks, the last once are only a bit more complicated to implement. You can start with the oldest objects and run these tests in a couple of days over the whole db. If a automatic test fails, simply mail the customer email address (that is known only by the NCC) and the mantainer (if there is one) and the address in the changed-by field (well there IS one) and wait ... the NCC could send a reminder a week later and if nothing happens, a big notice could be shown, when the LIR logs into the LIR portal next time. > Such a policy wouldn't satisfy people concerned with intentional abuse, > but it is a necessary step. Thats what I mean, start with the easy things. > Personally I support both automated methods of checking contact So thats a +1 ? > 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. :) Well, there is no harm to the members, its just reminders. I would love to know, if one of my objects has a not working email address. Kind regards, Frank > > -- > Shane > > -- 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 ======================================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] abuse email address validation - VOTE
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] abuse email address validation - VOTE
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]