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

Precisely.  But I wonder whether it is a greater problem to be packeted by a bot with C2 in IP space that would have been better off not being allocated, rather than being spammed or phished from there.  And how much greater or lesser any or all of those compared to the inconvenience routing and networking people face from having resources taken away for originating such traffic.

From: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
Date: Monday, 11 May 2020 at 11:12 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists at gmail.com>
Cc: Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg at c4inet.net>, 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 Mon, May 11, 2020 at 05:23:43PM +0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> All I am asking is that cobblers stick to their last. People with backgrounds in routing and networking are not necessarily the people in their organizations that handle abuse issues.
>
> Unless by extension you want your mailserver and spam filter people getting enable on your routers, or you want to go and filter spam for example.

If you discuss "taking away resources" as sanctions for improper abuse
handling (which is how this proposal started), yes, routing and networking
people are most highly affected.

If this is about "do you want a mail address or a web form for reporting
abuse?", no, routing and networking people do not really care much.

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/20200511/28762e0c/attachment.html>