[anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:38:28AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:36:10AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> > So it is not just easier to ask the abuse-c mailboxes that don't want to process to setup an autoresponder with an specific (standard) text about that, for example:
> > 
> > "This is an automated convirmation that you reached the correct abuse-c mailbox, but we don't process abuse cases, so your reports will be discarded."
> 
> I would support that.

... but it's actually way too complicated to implement.

A much simpler approach would be to make abuse-c: an optional attribute
(basically, unrolling the "mandatory" part of the policy proposal that 
introduced it in the first place)

 - If you want to handle abuse reports, put something working in.

 - If you do not want to handle abuse reports, don't.

The ARC could be extended with a question "are you aware that you are
signalling 'we do not not care about abuse coming from our network'?"
and if this is what LIRs *want* to signal, the message is clear.

The NCC could still verify (as they do today) that an e-mail address,
*if given*, is not bouncing (or coming back with a human bounce "you have
reached the wrong person, stop sending me mail" if someone puts in the
e-mail address of someone else).

MUCH less effort.

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/20200114/10d1a0e3/attachment.sig>