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

One more thing I just realized ...

I understand that the mailbox must be a "real" one, not the typical "privacy.85o8095.849804938 at privacy.xxx" that is used often in whois data ...

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de ox <andre at ox.co.za>
Organización: ox.co.za
Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 10:37
Para: <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [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.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    
    
    



**********************************************
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.