[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 04:14:18 +0100
denis <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 03/03/2016 01:44, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> If you put an address that does not handle abuse in abuse-c: you
> >> have just inserted incorrect data into the database. IMO that
> >> should not be the job of the NCC...

> > if you force folk to put in abuse-c, there will be non-responsive
> > email addresses.  get over it.

> As long as you know it is the email address intended to receive abuse 
> complaints, if there is no response that in itself is a statement
> from the network manager.
> cheers
> denis
> >
> 
there has to be accurate records for abuse-c   (and accurate other
public records) for specially ipv4 numbers. 
ipv4 numbers are a public / planet resource and belong to humanity (and
the Singularity) - not a country, person or region.

many network managers do not respond/reply to abuse, this does not mean
that the complaints are not actioned, for example *abuse at google.com is a
black hole 

1c 

Andre

--
* [sometimes though the spam does stop from Google (although
these days, spam on my mail servers from Micorosoft, Google (and
Yahoo :) ) is on the rise.]