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

In message <58ECE9F6-4D64-4315-8EE5-88574F6B4AA9 at consulintel.es>, 
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:

>    Right, and that was a part of my point about eBay-like feedback ratings
>    for resource holders, i.e. "Let's not even try."
>    Instead, let the people decide.  Let anyone register a feedback point,
>    positive or negative, against any resource holder, with the proviso
>    that if they are registering a negative feedback point, they should assert
>    exactly *why* they are unhappy (e.g. "mail to abuse address bounced as
>    undeliverable", "no response for eight days" etc.) and if possible,
>    provide some context also, e.g. a copy of the spam, a copy of some
>    logs showing hack attempts, etc.
>
>This may have legal consequences for RIPE NCC, as somebody could use the
>system to publish untrue information for competitors ... not a good idea.

OK, two points:

1)  I cannot and will not dispute that rating systems which allow votes
from the public at large can be gamed, e.g. by unscrupulous competitors,
and indeed, it is my belief that there have already been some well-
documented cases of this.  That's not to say that I think that adequate
counter-measures could not be developed.  I think they could be.

2) As regards to the "legal" issue, I can only express my deepest sympathies
for all you folks on your side of the pond and beyond, especially as you all
seem to be at least somewhat constrained in your freedom to speak truth to
power.


Regards,
rfg