[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

Hi,

On 29/04/2020 13:22, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> If people *want* to handle abuse reports, they do so today already
> (and if they mess up their mail reception, the NCC will check this today
> already, and let them know).
> 
> If people *do not want* to handle abuse reports, this proposal will not
> make them.


The above is unquestionable truth.  There is a grey area, where a mailbox
doesn't work because of misconfiguration, mailbox full, or similar issues.
Validation might help in those cases.

However, statements like:

    The “abuse-c:” will be mandatory for all aut-nums

are in conflict with the unquestionable truth quoted above.  Please, allow
abuse-c to be empty!  I have to keep a dont-send list of non-responding abuse
addresses.  Some 70% of the complaints I would have sent hit that list.  It
would be more practical to have an empty abuse-c entry in the first place.

In addition, having networks without abuse addresses makes them more easily
identifiable.  RIPE NCC could compile the relevant IP addresses into an easily
usable format, for example one readable by rbldns.  Rather than following-up
and threatening resource revocation, upon repeated validation failures, the
RIPE NCC should just remove the non-working abuse-c entry, thereby adding the
relevant IP addresses to the "no-complaints" list.

A web form to report bouncing abuse addresses would be useful too.


Best
Ale
-- 































-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200504/500d4b74/attachment.sig>