[anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

Yes, the idea Thomas had about human interaction, solving a captcha and a tickbox is a great idea

my 1c 

Andre

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:29:42 +0100
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> I also think that Thomas suggestion of a checkbox agreeing with
> regularly monitoring the abuse-mailbox is a wonderful suggestion.
> Regards,
> Jordi
> Para: <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase
> (Regular abuse-c Validation)
>     I support the proposal in general and i also think a human
> interaction of the resource holder is required.
>     
>     Am 19.01.18 um 09:52 schrieb Thomas Hungenberg:
>     > I second Jordi's opinion that validation of the abuse-mailbox
>     > should require human interaction of the resource holder. In
>     > addition to solving a captcha the resource holder might need to
>     > confirm (click a checkbox) that he will monitor the
>     > abuse-mailbox account on a regular basis and take appropriate
>     > action to solve reported abuse cases.
>     >
>     >
>     >      - Thomas
>     >
>     > CERT-Bund Incident Response & Malware Analysis Team
>     >
>     >
>     > On 18.01.2018 19:44, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
>     > wrote:  
>     >> I fully agree with this proposal and should be implemented
>     >> ASAP.
>     >>
>     >> HOWEVER, I’ve a question regarding the impact analysis, and
>     >> specially this sentence:
>     >>
>     >> “To increase efficiency, this process will use an automated
>     >> solution that will allow the validation of “abuse-mailbox:”
>     >> attributes without sending an email. No action will be needed
>     >> by resource holders that have configured their
>     >> “abuse-mailbox:” attribute correctly.”
>     >>
>     >> Reading the policy proposal, how the NCC concludes that it
>     >> should be “without sending an email”?
>     >>
>     >> I will say that the right way to do a validation (at
>     >> creation/modification and yearly) is, in a way that makes
>     >> sense (having an email that nobody is processing is exactly
>     >> the same as not having the abuse attribute at all): 1) Send an
>     >> email with a link that must be clicked by a human (so some
>     >> kind of captcha-like mechanism should be followed) 2) If this
>     >> link is not clicked in a period of 48 hours (not including
>     >> Saturday-Sunday), an alarm should be generated so the NCC can
>     >> take the relevant actions and make sure that the mailbox is
>     >> actively monitored by the LIR
>     >>
>     >> Regards,
>     >> Jordi  
>     >  
>     
>     -- 
>     Mit freundlichem Gruß
>     
>     Artfiles New Media GmbH
>     
>     Andreas Worbs
>     
>     
>     Artfiles New Media GmbH | Zirkusweg 1 | 20359 Hamburg
>     Tel: 040 - 32 02 72 90 | Fax: 040 - 32 02 72 95
>     E-Mail: support at artfiles.de | Web: http://www.artfiles.de
>     Geschäftsführer: Harald Oltmanns | Tim Evers
>     Eingetragen im Handelsregister Hamburg - HRB 81478
>     
>     
>     
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive
> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is
> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you
> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be
> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original
> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>