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

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 07:23:38AM +0000, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> 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.

So why is it preferrable to send mails which are not acted on, as
opposed to "not send mail because you know beforehand that the other
network is not interested"?

I can see that it is frustrating - but I still cannot support a policy
change which will not help dealing with irresponsible networks in any
way, but at the same time increases costs and workload for those that
do the right thing alrady.


> 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?

"a known contact" and "an *abuse-handling* contact" is not the same thing.

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/20200115/d7a79009/attachment.sig>