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

Hi,

I obviously don't speak for the incident handling community, but i think 
this (making it optional) would be a serious step back. The current 
situation is already very bad when in some cases we know from the start 
that we are sending (automated) messages/notices to blackholes.

To an extreme, there should always be a known contact responsible for 
any network infrastructure. If this is not the case, what's the purpose 
of a registry then?

Regards,
Carlos



On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, Leo Vegoda wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:48 AM Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> 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)
>
> This seems like a simple approach for letting network operators
> indicate whether or not they will act on abuse reports. If there's no
> way of reporting abuse then the operators clearly has no processes for
> evaluating reports, or acting on them. This helps everyone save time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Leo Vegoda
>