[anti-abuse-wg] abuse email address validation

Tobias Knecht wrote:
>
> I think we should look for a solution that covers the chain of
> authority. Maybe a first step can be to cover the maintainers email
> addresses and go from there. As soon as we have the maintainers we could
> cover everything beyond and notify maintainers if something is going
> wrong within their reliability.

RIPE NCC has even other addresses they could use, not only the
maintainer.

> This should also cover the mechanisms that will be used for checking.
> For example I think it is absolutely okay to send verification mails to
> the maintainers,

Right.
The LIR will have a problem, if they do not work, and even
if they do not work, the NCC could mail the (internally known)
customer email address and tell them, that the maintainer
does not work.

> but I'm not sure we should use a verification process
> on all the email addresses. This could first of all lead into legal
> issues and end up in accusing RIPE NCC as spammers when people with no

You cannot spam an email address, that is not working ;o)

Remember: Im currently not talking about regular email checks,
           first there should be syntax, TLD, domain, MX or A record
           and availability of the mailserver checked, these could
           by easily reported to the maintainer or if that fails
           to the LIR.

But thats interesting.
Does anybody think, that an object maintainer will interpret
an email coming from the NCC as spam, when it tells him,
that his object is wrong ?

If thats true, RIPE should really only mail the LIR directly.

On the other hand: Could somebody please point out, if there is any
contractual rule between RIPE and the LIR pushing the LIR to insert
only correct data in the database ?
If there is such a paragraph somewhere, it must be true, that
the LIR has the same rule with his own customers and the
chain should go down to every maintainer and even the last email
address, "spam" should be no problem then.

> direct legal connection to RIPE NCC receiving "spam" and need to verify
> their email address.

Verification should be discussed later, after its clear what
the community thinks about validation.


Kind regards, Frank
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tobias
>
>
>


-- 

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
--
MOTD: "have you enabled SSL on a website or mailbox today ?"
--
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
======================================================================