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

Hi Jordy,

On Tue 12/May/2020 11:34:19 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>> El 8/5/20 20:18, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de vesely at tana.it> escribió:
>>  On Fri 08/May/2020 13:28:10 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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.
> 
> [Jordi] Yes, RIPE provide stats for many things and probably this text is
> not really needed, but if we want to make sure to have this specific set of
> stats, *we need the text*. If we try to reach consensus in what I'm
> interpreting from your last half of the paragraph, it is very difficult to
> get consensus, and reclaiming resources must be only done in my opinion, in
> extreme cases. What cases are already described in
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-716, not specific to abuse
> cases.

You misunderstood me.  I'm not advocating de-registration of IP resources.  I
meant to remove just the abuse-c email address, since it does not work.  As an
alternative, as Àngel noted, there could be a tag saying that the email address
is not valid, without actually removing it.

Knowing if an abuse team is reachable is much more useful than statistics which
onehas to interpret in order to derive the same information.  Setting that
information has to be done with care, after making sure that the corresponding
organization has acknowledged that their abuse-c doesn't work and doesn't seem
to be after fixing it.

At that point, actions like transmitting the relevant IP ranges to a DNSBL can
take place.  Such actions are derived from a public database and don't have to
be carried out by RIPE NCC.  In particular, they imply no termination.


Best
Ale
--