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

correction: year 2020*
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
From: "Fi Shing" <phishing at storey.xxx>
Date: 1/16/20 10:03 am
To: "anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>

 Sergio, that would make too much sense.
 
This mailing list is not only not even considering what you have said, but they are trying to remove the requirement of a network operator to even receive emails about complaints at all.
 
Pathetic.
 
It's the year 2019, and these "people" on this list (probably cyber criminals or are paid by cyber criminals to weaken policy) come here and say this garbage.
 
 
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
From: "Sérgio Rocha" <sergio.rocha at makeitsimple.pt>
Date: 1/15/20 8:16 pm
To: "anti-abuse-wg" <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>

Hi,
 
 Maybe we can change the approach.
 If RIPE website had a platform to post abuse report, that send the email for
 the abuse contact, it will be possible to evaluate the responsiveness of the
 abuse contact.
 
 This way anyone that report an abuse could assess not only the response but
 also the effectiveness of the actions taken by the network owner. After some
 time with this evaluations we would easy to realize who manages the reports
 and even who does not respond at all.
 
 Sérgio 
 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of
 Gert Doering
 Sent: 15 de janeiro de 2020 08:06
 To: Carlos Friaças <cfriacas at fccn.pt>
 Cc: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>; anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
 Subject: Re: [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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200115/02e870ee/attachment.html>