[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 01:44:42PM +0200, Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> >> Coming from the incident response side, I'm tiered of people constantly
> >> telling me, that issues are not their problem
> > 
> > How would this proposal help with said problem?
> 
> - It will catch the cases where some miss configuration happened indeed

This is already caught today.  The RIPE NCC *does* abuse-c mailbox
validation today.

> - It will make it impossible for orgs to say "We never received a report"

How so?  Yes, there is a mailbox.  But if someone doesn't care, why 
would they not still claim "I have never seen a report"?

> - It allows us to enumerate better who does good work and who doesn't.

And how does *this proposal* have any influence on this?

I'm usually more of an reporter than a responder, but I've seen both
sides - and [as I've said before...] you don't get orgs that do not care
to magically expend resources on abuse handling by introducing more
mailbox verification procedures.

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/20200429/e7bf121c/attachment.sig>