[anti-abuse-wg] Abuse contact information sense

agree, for years ripe community tried to explain to rest of the world ripe Ncc is not the governor of the internet, let's not make this job more difficult.

This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

> On 2014年7月15日, at 下午8:07, Wilfried Woeber <Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at> wrote:
> 
> James Davis wrote:
> 
>>> On 15/07/2014 10:56, Angel Fernandez Pineda wrote:
>> [...]
>> You're right, it doesn't oblige anyone to actually do anything -
> 
> Actually, this was one of my worries, when the abuse-c stuff was designed,
> that having this (mandatory) attribute would send the (confusing) message to
> the "user", that there's an obligation to react (and respond) to each and
> every piece of incoming mail.
> 
> Even more worrying, that the NCC would be seen as "responsible" to manage
> those things.
> 
> Alas, this is definitely outside the scope of the NCC's responsibilities, just
> as it is outside the NCC's responsibility to assure, that every IP address that
> is listed in the registry has to be accessible, with each type of packets, from
> every other endpoint on the Internet.
> 
> Just as there are filters out there, for packets, there are lots of filters
> and policies around, what to do with (different types, from different sources
> of) incoming mail.
> 
> Just as an explanation and not as supporting (perceived) (C) violations.
> 
> Regards, hth,
> Wilfried.
>