[anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field

Hi Frank,

On Jul 28, 2012, at 12:19 pm, Frank Gadegast <ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de> wrote:

[…]

> If somebody does not want to receive abuse reports or
> does not want to do something against abuse originating
> from his own resources or likes to receive them not via
> email or has whatever else reason, well, name it
> this-email-address-is-not-being-read at yourdomain.com
> or
> no-reply at example.com
> or send it to devnull …

I think you are arguing in favour of forcing people to tell a small lie about abuse reporting addresses to improve the completeness of the database. Database users then need to parse all e-mail addresses and work out which patterns should be ignored. I do not understand why you want reporters to be forced to do additional processing to reach a decision about whether it is worth attempting to send an abuse report. Can you please explain the benefit to abuse reporters?

> Lots of resource holders are already doing the same,
> we keep a list of there email addresses, so
> we do not have to send them reports that
> will only fill our mail queue to bounce back.
> I can understand them and respect that others
> like to work things different and we do not
> send them reports anymore.

I do not want to encourage the development of more business logic like this.

Regards,

Leo Vegoda
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4359 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20120731/70325a8f/attachment.p7s>