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

​Thanks Jordi,

You cannot force LIR's to act in the fashion below (that is wishful thinking). However you can make transparant, how abuse desks deal with complaints.

I would therefore suggest the following:

Keep the current validation procedure, add a date to the abuse-whois, when the address was last sucessfully checked. 
Give LIR's the options to add an acceptable abuse format for automated processing to the whois.

By this you 		- make visible the adres works;
				- make the abuse whois act as a source for how responsible organisations deal with abuse.

I could image there would be the one or more of the following options:
{blank} = not filled in by LIR
{manual} = LIR handles abuse in a manual fashion
{XARF} = accepts Xarf/RFC5965 form and handles them automatically
{other specification, maybe with URL}
{api with url}
{'whatever'}

This would be more valuable for the whole global abuse handling process than the burdensome time waster that is now proposed.
​-- 
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221


On Sat, 18-05-2019 13h 31min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 


Hi Alex,
 
The intent of this policy is to ensure that the validation process is useful, and that means ensuring that the inbox is working, real (not from somebody else), monitored for abuse reports (automatically is ok if it really works, but there must be a way for human participation), and that those that send abuse reports don’t need to use a different form for every possible LIR in the world, which is not viable (unless there is a common standard for that – work in parallel but may take years).
 
A responsible organization will deal with abuse reports, and having a working abuse-c is part of it, otherwise people can’t report abuse cases. If abuse cases are ignored you escalate to the NCC or courts, or whatever, that’s another layer.



> Regards,
Jordi
 


 
 


El 16/5/19 22:42, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alex de Joode" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de alex at idgara.nl> escribió:


 


​Ola,


​


It's unclear to me what you are trying to accomplish with this policy:


1.       ensure ripe members have a working (as in receiving mail) abuse email address;
2.       ensure ripe members have a working abuse email address and process incoming mails;
3.       ensure ripe members have a working abuse email address and read it;
4.       ensure ripe members have a working abuse email address and act responsibly on notices.


It seems you want to verify that a human reads the abuse box. However this will tell you nothing about how an organisation actually deals with abuse. So it will only burden ripe members to no avail.

 

It is my belief ripe should stick to technical verification that a abuse email box exists and is able to receive mail. Ripe is not the internet sheriff :)

 

Cheers,

Alex




 


​-- 


IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221




> **********************************************
> 
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.
> 

> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190518/95a06520/attachment.html>