[anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field

Tobias Knecht wrote:
> Hi,

Hi,

>
>>> An option could be the following:
>>> the possibility to set the abuse-mailbox field to something like
>>> "non-responsive", a predefined value, thats valid according
>>> to the format of the field. The cleanup will happen, the resource owner
>>> makes a decision and the reporter could see, that the
>>> resource owner does not want to have reports (via email) ...
>>
>> That seems pretty reasonable to me.
>
> That could be an option. There is only one point I do not understand. We
> are talking only about the direct allocations, which in my opinion
> should all have an abuse address and handle their abuse. That is at
> least my opinion.

Yes, I agree.
This should only be only an option for subdelegations.

> As I understood Franks idea the resource holder would have to call
> himself "non-responsive" and publish this information, which will
> definitevely create problems in the future. Just thinking of blacklists
> using this information and so on, so at the end the unresponsive will
> add addresses that are deleting inbound messages. Which is of course not

Also true, we could not hide the abuse mailbox field, if its
set to "non-responsive", because lots of software depends on
the presents of the field and will depend on a well-formed email
address.

Humans will also be confused, when its communicated, that
its mandatory and it will be missing in some cases.

Setting it to an a kind of generic not-used email address
might not be an option too.

Maybe there will be or is already a blacklist, thats collecting
non-responsive resource holders, they could provide an email address ;o)

> good either, but we could even proof that an unresponsive ISPs has
> accepted mail on his given address. This can be interesting in legal
> situations like Frank explained as well.
>
> So at the moment I think we have a solution that is easy and
> understandable for everybody and tries to solve a lot of possible
> scenarios. I would rather not change things into a direction that makes
> specific scenarios impossible just to make it "easier" for reporters to
> manage things from a bounce handling or deliverability perspective.

I think so too, its was just an idea that is not really leading
to anything until somebody else come up with an idea how
this non-responsive address could be formed ...

> And on the other hand, we (abusix) are sending more than 500k reports
> per day to different ISPs all over the world using whois information and
> yes around 30% are bouncing. So what? We are not even looking at the
> bounce messages. Next time we try again to deliver messages. This is at
> the end not a real problem for reporting parties. And I would not put to
> much attention on it.
>
> On the long end I would rather like to see something like ARIN is doing
> with wrong contact information. Tagging whois entries if the data that
> is provided is not accurate and resource holders are not cooperative.

Well sayd.


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
======================================================================