[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 Review Phase Reminder

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 20:47:36 +0100
Alexander Isavnin <isavnin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the reminder!
> 
> Better late than never.
> 
> I strongly oppose to this proposal.
> 
> 1) With a lot of words about improving trust and safety in Proposal's
> summary, there is no evidence about issues with trust and safety with
> uncheked "abuse-c:" 

I posted an actual IP with an auto responder that requires web form
completion - where the web form itself has so many hoops and is broken.
You did not bother telling me that I made a mistake or that the example
company suddenly changed their behavior?
Instead you simply choose to post: "there is no evidence about issues"

> 2) In my experience, real abusers have all their contacts valid (and
> responsive). 

In my experience not 100% of abusers have their contacts valid and not
100% responsive. Never mind that there is no such thing as  "real
abusers" (abusers are abusers), some companies simply drop incoming 
abuse-c, some companies have fake auto responders, etc. etc.

> 3) Why only abuse-c have to be checked? There are a lot
> of different contacts or information, that could be verified. 
> 
Sure, but this is anti-abuse-wg

> Also, RIPE NCC executive just got extraordinary powers to revoke
> resources.

This is just fake news / and / a completely incorrect/wrong statement.

If you still think I am wrong - please elaborate and supply evidence.

> So we have to be very carefull with policies, which may
> lead to resource revocation just because of e-mail issues (i had such
> issues with RIPE NCC mail servers).
> 
Also completely wrong because it is built on a wrong statement.

> Plus all other arguments against or concerning about this proposal,
> raised in discussion previously. 
> 

sure, this makes a lot of sense :)


> Kind regards,
> Alexander Isavnin
> 
> 
> 
> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
>