[anti-abuse-wg] Manual vs automated reports

On Thu 26/Jul/2012 12:51:38 +0200 Denis Walker wrote:
> On 26/07/2012 12:17, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" wrote:
>> On 26 Jul 2012, at 10:01, Denis Walker wrote:
>>
>>>  From the RIPE NCC website you can find an Abuse Finder tool
>>> http://apps.db.ripe.net/search/abuse-finder.html
>>>
>>> This is a first iteration of a user tool to help with finding abuse
>>> contact information in the RIPE Database. It tries to find the
>>> abuse contact(s) for an Internet resource on a 'best effort' basis.
>>
>> I tried that now. It's very confusing.
>>
>> It's not at all clear if the search box will take an IP address or
>> not ..
> 
> That is a good point. People 'within the registration business' know
> what an Internet resource is and know what we mean by primary key. To
> more general users (including the public), these terms may not mean
> anything. In fact 'key' may even be interpreted as 'password'. We will
> make that more clear.

While making things clear is always meritorious, end users should be
encouraged to signal abuse to some reporting hub.  They should prompt
their mailbox providers to implement such service, rather than doing
it themselves.  In the words of RFC 6650:

 Rather than generating feedback reports themselves, MUAs SHOULD
 create abuse reports and send these reports back to their Mailbox
 Providers so that they can generate and send ARF messages on behalf
 of end users (see Section 3.2 of [RFC6449]).  This allows centralized
 processing and tracking of reports, and provides training input to
 filtering systems.  There is, however, no standard mechanism for this
 signaling between MUAs and Mailbox Providers to trigger abuse
 reports.
                      http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6650#section-5.3