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

On 25/09/2017 16:41, Richard Clayton wrote:
> In message <59C9148B.6010605 at foobar.org>, Nick Hilliard
> <nick at foobar.org> writes
> 
>> So, to be clear, it would be fully policy compliant if someone:
> 
>> - registers IP address space with the RIPE NCC, with contact information
>> point to a PO box in Panama or BVI.
>> - sets up an abuse mailbox with an autoresponder, where all emails are
>> thrown into the bin
>> - ignores all attempts at contact regarding abuse queries, whether from
>> LEAs or not
> 
>> If this is the case, what problem is this proposal trying to solve?
> 
> #1 people who set the email address to  nowhere at example.com

[deleted list of similar brokenness]

Yes, I get that it will trigger on that.

What I'm struggling with (I don't want to speak for Nick), is this: what
is the benefit of getting people to set it to a valid address that no
human reads, or no human capable of acting, over null or the various
null-equivalents you list?

Who does that help? How?

Michele said:
> In fact an auto-reply would be preferable to the black holes in many
> cases ..

Can someone please explain why that is preferable, rather than merely
equivalent?

(Please don't just say "because it shows they have working e-mail". What
is the value of that, if nobody's reading it?)


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