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

On Thu, 23 May 2019 00:38:00 +0200
Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 06:40:28PM +0100, Sérgio Rocha wrote:
> > There are only one internet, the abuse problem its worldwide, the
> > challenges for better management are the same, that's why all
> > region are looking for the similar responses for the same problems.
> > I support this proposals and other that give more capacity for RIPE
> > deal with abuses.   
> 
+1

> This proposal takes *away* resources from people that actually deal
> with abuse cases.  Now they would have to deal with clicking on
> response forms and filling in tokens, instead of handling actual
> abuse complaints.
> 
few minutes a year, very reasonable.

> Folks, the process we have in the RIPE region for abuse contact
> validation is the result of a *consensus based process* that happend
> *in this working group*.
> Before you all argue for "we need to have more paperwork!" please take
> a step back and explain a) what is wrong with the current validation
> process, and b) why this proposal would improve this.
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster

because, IRL (in real life) things do not remain "static"

we are all sitting on a spinning ball in the middle of nowhere and
there is vast chaos out there on which we are trying to enforce
patterns in order to create fake stability.

basically, I am saying that, over time, things change. the whole point
of having data is to have current, working and "real" data otherwise
we may as well not even parse the email address format for abuse-c

why not propose then just to remove the resource completely? 

your very forceful and multiple emails arguing very hard against and
all your emails, attacking each and every +1 simply serves to
illustrate that you really want to enforce your opinion on the group
in this regard.

So, again, I ask: Why not propose to remove the abuse contact resource
completely? Is this where you are going with your very strong and
continuing and ongoing objections?

Andre