This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Fw: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Wed Jan 15 10:30:00 CET 2020
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, Hi, (please see inline) > 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 think Serge already took care of that answer/issue :-) And in our case we do count the # of bounces we get resulting from the abuse complaints we send out. > 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. I guess you are not convinced with the 10 min/year argument then :-( >> 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. I don't really like the case where "a known contact" is used as a last resort contact because there is an abuse issue. Hence, the value i see on a mandatory definition of an abuse contact -- while any network can still decide to use the same contact for both (or more) purposes. Cheers, Carlos > 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 >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Fw: working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]