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

Hi Job
Interesting but I don't think this is for Joe Public who receives spam or phishing emails and wants to complain about them. I can't see your average non techie internet user downloading software to make a complaint.
cheersdenis

      From: Job Snijders <job at ntt.net>
 To: denis <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> 
Cc: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>; Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie>; andre at ox.co.za; RIPE DB WG <db-wg at ripe.net>
 Sent: Monday, 7 March 2016, 21:19
 Subject: Re: [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
   
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:17:00PM +0100, denis wrote:
> On 07/03/2016 16:49, Randy Bush wrote:
> >>In the absence of an abuse contact mailbox attached to address
> >>registration data, can you make some constructive suggestions about
> >>how a recipient of internet abuse can get in contact with the people
> >>who manage the address block and who, by implication, are likely to
> >>have some form of contractual relationship with whoever is instigating
> >>the abuse?
> >
> >i am not against having an abuse-c: field.  i am against making it
> >mandatory.  all that'll get us is black holes.
> 
> What you are really saying here is that you are willing to accept that many
> network managers don't want to handle abuse complaints. So make it optional
> and let them leave it blank.
> 
> As a community are we willing to accept that many networks simply don't want
> to handle abuse complaints? Or do we want it mandatory and then as a next
> stage tackle these black holes with devnull.

there are other ways to handle abuse on both reporting & resolving side.
what seems to be the populair way these days is publishing abuse in
feeds and subscribing to those feeds, no email involved. example:
https://abuse.io/


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160307/f1cf14fc/attachment.html>