[anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports

To complement what Alessandro said, it is good that RFC 6650 splits abuse complaints between "solicited" and "unsolicited" ones, even though it may confuse common users.

The "solicited" should be reserved for Spam Cop, and other administrators who are trying to report Abuse/Spam activities to a network. 

The "unsolicited" channel could be like a web form that encourages users to report Abuse/Spam activities to a network like the one that GoDaddy has: https://supportcenter.godaddy.com/Abuse/SpamReport.aspx?ci=22420.

This way, the "solicited" channel (abuse at domain-name.com) would remain free of unsolicited inquiries, and network administrators could mange it more efficiently and process legitimate reports promptly.

Thank you,

Reza Farzan

===========




-----Original Message-----
>From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely at tana.it>
>Sent: Jul 24, 2012 2:22 PM
>To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
>Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
>
>On Tue 24/Jul/2012 17:34:01 +0200 Luis Muñoz wrote:

>> I believe that having an optional "auto-abuse-mailbox" object (that
>> is mandatory to use when present) dealing only with automated
>> reports, could help anti-abuse operators (both in the report
>> sending and receiving sides).
>
>Let me add one consideration to what Tobias wrote:
>
>RFC 6650 splits abuse complaints between "solicited" and "unsolicited"
>ones.  Also known as feedback loops, the former can be automated
>according to the underlying agreement.  One can use a different
>reporting addresses for each subscription.
>
>Unsolicited complaints deserve a bit of thought:  Who is sending them?
> Why?  When such questions are cleared, the stream of reports from
>that operator can be directed to the appropriate bin, possibly by
>negotiating a different address with the report generator.  In fact,
>that is the same as establishing a feedback loop, and it cannot be
>automated fully for the same reasons why subscriptions to the early
>kind of feedback loops cannot.
>
>See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6650#section-5.5