[anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to abuse inbox

In message <0A339F88-8746-458D-A868-7BD3058B89E6 at consulintel.es>, 
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:

>I see it in the other way around. Forms are not useful at all. You need to
>manually fill in the form, unless you modify the automated reporting tools for
>?each? ?form-holder?. Many of them also ask you to create an account in their
>ticketing system, but because you?re not their customer, you actually can?t do
>it, or can?t use it, etc. ? When I tried to follow the steps, with major
>datacenters, such as OVH (one very common hoster of ?bad? customers, not to say
>criminals), they never solve the issues, or you can?t see the ?results? of the
>investigation (I tend to think that never investigated in fact ?).

It's really too bad that this WG could never even agree to define the term
"abuse".

If there was a definition of "abuse", the perhaps some further forward
movement would be possible, specifically, as should be obvious from what
Jordi posted (which reflects the common and shared experience of most of
us) if we had a definition of "abuse" to start from, then we might be
able to move on to developing a Best Practices document for -responding-
to various kinds of abuse reports.

It's crystal clear, and has been already for many many years, that many
networks are so far away from what might be called "optimal" abuse report
handing that many are actually doing things that no only do not prevent
or deter abuse, but rather, the actions of some networks are actually and
actively encouraging, fostering, and supporting abuse.

Unlike the present situation here on earth, on any sane planet there would
at least be some generally agreed upon yardstick that would allow the
community to say definitively, and based on evidence, that "Provider X is
doing a perfectly abysmal job of handling abuse reports" or conversely that
"Provider Y is doing a fine job of professionally handing abuse reports."
Unfortunately, as of now, here on planet earth we can only share unscientific
anecdotes and (possibly biased) personal opinions.


Regards,
rfg