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

not sure that I know of any abuse@ email that is
privacy.85o8095.849804938 at example.com 

(the privacy.xxx domain may exist and be a real domain - as such the 
"privacy.85o8095.849804938 at privacy.xxx"  you used, in your example,
may actually belong to someone...)

But quick question: who decides what email address is "real" and what
is not "real" 

If an abuse@ uses privacy.85o8095.849804938 at example.com then receives
email and solves a capcha and then clicks a tickbox - the email address
is functional / working and "real" ???

Regards

Andre

On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 10:40:40 +0100
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>