[anti-abuse-wg] Abuse-C attributes - required e-mail address contact method.

On Tuesday 17 March 2015 01.42, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> 
> My two cents...
> 
> The person/company who proposed this proposal used the word "complainant"
> to refer to someone (anyone) attempting to report a case of network
> abuse to its source network administrators.
> 
> Personally, speaking only for myself, I object to being called a
> "complainant" or a "complainer", e.g. when I attempt to do the decent
> thing and take up _my_ valuable time to notify responsible (?) network
> administrators about something I feel that they themselves may want
> to know about, and indeed should want to know about.
> 
> Of course, the Powers That Be at many networks ... the bean counters
> and the higher level managers... often view _any_ communication with
> any party other than a paying customer as a waste of time and money,
> and thus, the personel underneath these folks inevitably come to
> develop an "us versus them" attitude which leads inevitably to viewing
> reports generated by outsiders, aka non-paying customers, as "complaints"
> and the senders as "complainers" whose only (or primary) goal is to
> cost the receiving company time and money, rather than the opposite,
> i.e. attempting to _help_ the receiving company.
> 
> I would argue that it is this bean counter attitute that has itself
> given rise to most of the abuse on the Internet, i.e. in the time since
> the broad commercialization of the net in the mid 1990's.
> 
> If you view receiving, understanding, and acting upon notifications
> of bad behavior occuring on your network as nothing other than a
> non-profit-generating cost sink, then you are entirely less likely to
> ever actually *do* anything about such reports.  And when you don't,
> the word goes out among the bad guy communities on the Internet, and
> your network ends up being the source of ever more network abuse.
> This is just the (Darwinian) way things are.  Opportunistic leeches
> abound.  If given safe homes, they and their activities proliferate.
> 
> I generally expend a good deal of time and effort writing up any abuse
> report I send.  (Note that I say "report" not "complaint".) There are
> plenty of ways that various networks have dreamed up to avoid reading
> these "complaints", i.e. because they don't immediately or obviously
> generate any instantaneous revenue or profits for the receipient networks.
> The simplest method to avoid spending any non-profit-generating company
> man hours on reading abuse reports is just to alias abuse at network to
> /dev/null.  If Virgin feels that reading incoming e-mail reports is not
> worth their time, then I respectfully suggest that they simply enter
> devnull at example.com into the abuse contact e-mail address fields for
> all of their relevant RIPE database records.  This will be maximally
> efficient for all concerned.  (There really is no more efficient way
> for Virgin to process all of their incoming "complaints".  And since they
> _are_ clearly concerned about the efficiency of this process, that would
> seem to be ttheir best solution.)
> 
> 
> Regards,
> rfg
> 
> 



Wonderful !  A masterpiece ! Well formulated, well written and ON THE SPOT !

Thanks

-- 
        Peter Håkanson   

        There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it
        again ... and again ... and again ... and again.
        ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )