This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Sat May 18 10:38:46 CEST 2019
El 18/5/19 10:35, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> escribió: 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*. That automated system will be against the policy. I've already worded it out in such way that is not possible this type of "work-around the policy", at least it was my original intent to avoid it. If I've broken something across more than 20 versions that I edited internally since started, I will make sure to fix it in the next version. 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 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com 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.
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]