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/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Mon May 4 13:28:03 CEST 2020
As long as the ASNs that are not maintaining an abuse address are published along with the no complaints list, I personally have no complaints. From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net> Date: Monday, 4 May 2020 at 3:59 PM To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> Subject: Re: [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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20200504/9888d539/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]