[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

Hello Malcom,



Thank you for your clarification.

The complete answer will be part of the RIPE NCC impact analysis and will refer to this Registry's understanding.



Before that, we can give some preliminary remarks, in phase with RIPE NCC discussions.



As we stated in your last answer with Grégory, a gradual approach will be implemented, in a flexible manner with dialogue as a priority. The validation or invalidation of the "abuse-mailbox" will be studied carefully.



With regard to your first scenario, the auto-answer you mention can be considered as a valid reply, and the "support service" would help to proceed with the abuse report.

Your scenario 2 is a little more questionable. A first question would be: which provider would do the effort to treat RIPE NCC emails different than normal abuse reports ? Besides that, this fact would show that the abuse contact is technically reachable.

And furthermore, if other abuse reports are bounced by the provider, RIPE NCC report can be used for investigation.



Regards



Hervé and Greg





-----Message d'origine-----
De : anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net] De la part de Malcolm Hutty
Envoyé : lundi 25 septembre 2017 11:55
À : anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Objet : [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?





I would like to clarify the effect of this proposal.



The proposal states:

"The RIPE NCC will validate the “abuse-mailbox:” attribute at least annually. If no valid reply is received by RIPE NCC within two weeks (including if the email bounces back), the “abuse-mailbox:” contact attribute will be marked as invalid."





Scenario 1: An LIR directs e-mail sent to their abuse-cc: address to an auto-responder that says "This mailbox is not monitored by a human being", and advises on alternate "support services" (e.g. a FAQ, a webform that feeds a ticketing system etc). Is RIPE NCC intended to mark the attribute as invalid in this scenario?



Scenario 2: An LIR filters incoming e-mail sent to their abuse-cc:

address. Email from RIPE NCC gets "priority treatment", i.e. is directed to someone who passes a Turing test administered by the NCC. E-mail from anyone else gets the same treatment as in scenario 1.



Is Scenario 2 compliant with the policy? If not, how is RIPE NCC supposed to know to mark the attribute as invalid? What tests are the NCC supposed to administer? And what must an LIR do to pass them?



Malcolm.



--

            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523

   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/



                 London Internet Exchange Ltd

           Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ



         Company Registered in England No. 3137929

       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20170925/45fce865/attachment.html>