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] the mandatory abuse field
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Frank Gadegast
ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de
Tue Jul 31 16:03:12 CEST 2012
Leo Vegoda wrote: > Hi Frank, > > On Jul 28, 2012, at 12:19 pm, Frank Gadegast <ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de> wrote: > >> 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? Simply because its better to have ONE place for reporters. Forcing these addresses to be working and correct is not part of this proposal and could be discussed later (and fixed with another proposal). Currently there are lots of places to store the abuse-contact and a lot of them are wrong, because of a lie, lacyness, technical problems or whatsoever. In future you will have only one place to look for it, probably also with a lot of wrong addresses. Anyway, it would be better than it is now. >> 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. You do need this logic already (even if that logic consist only of an reply-address for your abuse reports, that you do not read at all ;o) You already have this logic, if you have a ticket system for the reports you send out. You then have to deal with all these bounces since you started reporting ... Kind regards, Frank > > Regards, > > Leo Vegoda > -- 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 ======================================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]