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

 
> This is fully sufficient to notice technical brokenness.
 
No it isn't for the reasons previously said by others:
 
1) if i put your email address as the abuse contact for my resource, the system would make it as "valid",
 
2) sometimes an address can be broken, even in ways that the sender cannot be aware of - for example, if an email address relies on a forwarding mechanism and 1 or more of the email addresses that it forwards to are shut down or the person no longer works at the company, any "bounces" will be sent to the original abuse email address, which is not monitored.
 
3) some email accounts can forward emails to a black hole (deliberately)
 
4) some email accounts can label an email as "spam" because it contains spam characteristics, and automatically delete it,
 
 
The emphasis should be on demonstrating a properly functioning abuse email address.
 
Issues relating to proper handling past the point of ensuring that the owner is compelled to actually RECEIVE the email is another discussion all together.
 
 
 
 
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
From: "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net>
Date: 5/23/19 7:39 pm
To: "ac" <ac at main.me>
Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net

Hi,
 
 On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 06:29:32AM +0200, ac wrote:
 > > 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"
 
 This is why we do (already!) verify abuse-c: reachability today.
 
 In a lightweight process that came out as consensus out of this
 very WG.
 
 [..]
 > 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?
 
 No. Abuse-contacts are useful. We do validate them today for 
 technical reachability.
 
 This is fully sufficient to notice technical brokenness. It is not
 sufficient to enforce actual abuse *handling*, but neither is the
 proposed policy change.
 
 Do not put words in my mouth, I'm perfectly able to do that myself.
 
 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190523/57d46962/attachment.html>