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/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tobias Knecht
tk at abusix.com
Wed Jul 25 14:03:34 CEST 2012
Hi, > Well, you need to have received a report from yahoodle.com before you > can separate it from the rest. You also need some authentication > scheme to ascertain the sender's identity, so it is not so trivial > after all. This is part of the trust building process you have to do anyway. No abuse department would ever trust unknown reports blindly. And in either ways (one or two abuse-mailbox attributes) you have to proof authentication. But this is now sliding away from the main topic. The point I would make here is, that there are techniques in place that can separate reports and that can proof authentication and that abuse departments can or should use them and not not using these techniques and make things more complicated for the reporter. We have to differentiate another thing as well. We are talking here about reports that are not opt-in. So if an abuse department wants to receive all feedbackloops on a dedicated email address, they can do so, because they have the right to choose while subscribing. But it does not make any sense to publish this dedicated address in whois. > OTOH, asking for the reporter's intervention lets them know that you > received their complaint and are doing something about it. I'm not 100% sure if I completely understood what you want to say with that. If we have the case of 2 email addresses and an reporter sends them to the by receiver subjectively wrong address and the receiver contacts the reporter to tell him to send it to another address this shows that he is doing something about it? If it's that what you meant I can't follow this logic. The receiver could tell the sender to send it to another address which is dev-nulled (which the receiver will obviously not mention). And why should we build in this hoop for receivers and make it harder for them, force them to start discussions about the right address and waste time on that when they can easily separate things technically in their system? Thank, Tobias
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]