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

Malcolm,



To be clear regarding the acceptability of the auto-responder:

It refers to "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"



Hervé



-----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 16:01
À : ox; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?







Andre writes:

> probably, yes. if ai is advanced enough to deal with incoming

> communications in an acceptable fashion, this will be just fine.



> - your trust in your ai would be most commendable and as imho, ai will

>    be running everything in a few years anyway, this is perfectly

>    acceptable





Andre, please accept my apologies for writing about the "Turing test",

it was meant lightheartedly but has confused the issue. It is my fault

for being flippant.



I didn't envisage that a true AI would handle would such enquiries. I

was pointing out two areas that are problematic, separately:



1. The RIPE NCC may not recognise an auto-responder when they see it, if

it has been tailored to them specifically (and to achieving a formal but

spurious compliance); and

2. A response by a real human being may be just useless as a bounce

message, if constrained by policy. That is to say, if all the human is

permitted to do is choose from a small range of stock responses (such as

directing the person making the enquiry to some pre-written FAQ) then

this is equivalent to an autoresponder, so why prohibit (deem

non-compliant) only the automated response?



However from Hervé's reply I see that a less ambitious bar is being set,

and an autoresponder is acceptable, whether a human autoresponder or a

software one. I have my doubts that this really achieves anything

useful, but at least it is clear.





On 25/09/2017 11:34, ox wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:55:09 +0100

> Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>> wrote:

>> 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?

>>

> there is no point to have an email address that does not exist or is not monitored.

>

> if or when email ever stops working and is replaced by alternate "support services"

> this will be a good timeTM to accept non monitored email addresses

>

> but to granularly define generally accepted forms of communications,

> is pointless as there will always be a good reason for whatever form of

> communication, to not be suitable or acceptable to someone.

>

> take mobile, or phone numbers, it can easily be argued "but i am not

> available to take calls" or whatever... - everything always has

> exceptions, it is whether those exceptions are generally reasonable or not

> and/or generally acceptable.

>

>

>> 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?

>>

> probably, yes. if ai is advanced enough to deal with incoming

> communications in an acceptable fashion, this will be just fine.

>

> ianal but, there are legal implications, if your ai receives x notice, replies, etc.

>

>  - your trust in your ai would be most commendable and as imho, ai will

>    be running everything in a few years anyway, this is perfectly

>    acceptable :)

>

>

> Andre

>





--

            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/20170925/44038dc9/attachment.html>