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

Agree. What I care is people reporting abuses and never getting the problem solved.

If you are an LIR you're responsible for possible abuses to third parties, and you must respond to them. Your cost for resolving those abuses is your problem, because is your organization who takes advantage of whatever income for that you have.

What you can't do is to ask the rest of the Internet to support the cost for you, by not responding to abuses, or asking the rest of the world to fill-in your form instead of allowing automated abuse reporting systems, which work by email (example, fail2ban), unless we define a world-wide standard web form for reporting abuses, instead of doing that by email.

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, 10:58
Para: Wolfgang Tremmel <wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net>
CC: "anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

    On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 09:42:09 +0000
    Wolfgang Tremmel <wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net> wrote:
    
    > I support this policy and IMHO an automated check is "good enough"
    > If someone asks how this could be done I suggest reading rfc2821
    > 
    > IMHO requiring human interaction would deliver too many "false
    > negatives". People suggesting a captcha I guess have never worked at
    > a helpdesk or in any customer support function....
    > 
    
    you mean in practical "real life"  work?
    
    practically, abuse admins and people that actually deal with abuse are
    able to solve a capcha and tick a box.
    
    what this will prevent (to a certain degree) are 'automated' bots that
    exist simply to prove that something exists and not that something is
    actually attended to or is "real" (as in rfc2821 is so not relevant to
    the objective of the policy and the existence of a functional abuse@ as
    all an rfc2821 check will do is tell you that abuse@ can accept email
    
    many abuse-c addresses accept email (so an rfc2821 check will work) and
    then the mailbox responds: "this is an unattended mailbox and your
    email may never be seen or read by a human person. If you want to
    report abuse, please visit our website and click on "support" to ask a
    question in our forums" - or some similar drivel.
    
    Regards
    
    Andre
    
    
    > best regards
    > Wolfgang
    > 
    > > On 18. Jan 2018, at 12:20, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote:
    > > 
    > > Dear colleagues,
    > > 
    > > Policy proposal 2017-02, "Regular abuse-c Validation" is now in the
    > > Review Phase. 
    > 
    
    
    



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