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

On Fri 08/May/2020 13:28:10 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> Hi Alessandro,
> 
> As I've indicated already several times (and not just in this discussion), all the RIRs have forms or other methods to escalate any issues.
> 
> The proposal is only changing "let's have stats".


I read:

    The RIPE NCC will validate the “abuse-mailbox:” attribute at least
    annually. Where the attribute is deemed incorrect, it will follow up in
    compliance with relevant RIPE Policies and RIPE NCC procedures.
               https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04

The anonymized statistics is mentioned afterward.  It seems to result from
community escalation and reporting, rather than from the abuse-mailbox
validation itself.  By my proposal, instead, the output of the validation
process is borne out when the abuse address is removed from the database —and
the corresponding IP ranges duly transmitted.


Best
Ale


> El 4/5/20 12:29, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de vesely at tana.it> escribió:
> 
>     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
>     -- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>