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

+1
Who cares what the email address / alias / forwarder / mailbox looks like


--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
https://blacknight.blog/
https://ceo.hosting/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,
Ireland  Company No.: 370845
On 19/01/2018, 09:47, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of andre at ox.co.za> wrote:

    
    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.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    >