[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi,

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 10:28:45AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>     So, please state *first* what is wrong or insufficient with the current
>     process, and why these added complications would improve the end goal:
>     abuse reports sent to ISPs are handled "better" (in a to-be-defined
>     metric).
> 
> A process that allows to use emails from other random people is not a *real validation* it looks closer to a joke.

If the NCC's existing abuse mail validation mails hit other people's
mailboxes, those can report back, and the NCC will surely follow up with
the LIR that did this incorrect entry.


I have an idea.

I will set up a service where everyone can have an e-mail address which
will totally follow everything you propose as validation mechanism - like,
click on tokes, report back in 10 minutes (even in the middle of the 
night), etc. - LIRs that want to be spared this annoyance can just pay
me 50 EUR/month, and I'll handle all these chores for them.

So, this would totally fulfill your proposed policy, and not help in any
bit with *abuse handling*.

Can you now see why your proposal is useless in achieving it (not very
clearly stated) goal?  And if something is not useful towards the goal,
but has lots of drawbacks, it should not be followed.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190518/e5b92173/attachment.sig>