[anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Report ignored. What to do as next?

On Tue 05/Dec/2023 15:17:59 +0100 Gert Doering wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 09:40:22AM +0000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>> The claim is that the change in policy had an impact in other regions.
>> If that is true then where is the data to backup that assertion?
> 
> Especially: saying "it feels less painful to send abuse complaints", aka
> "there is less bounces" is not the same as "there is less abuse" or "more
> people properly handle abuse requests directed to them now"
> 
> "Getting a bounce from an ill-maintained abuse mailbox" might actually
> be more insightful than "the mail is delivered just fine, but then ignored"
> - nothing in these proposals will force the receiver to deal with the mail
> properly, so getting abounce actually sends a clear signal "please just
> block this target network" instead of raising hopes.


That's right.  Rather than having, for example:

     Responsible organisation: Oliv Evelyn
     Abuse contact info: noreply at lighost.com
     inetnum:         162.19.141.192 - 162.19.141.195
     netname:         OVH_293642614

where the address obviously bounces, it would be clearer to have an established 
way to say there is no abuse team.  Empty, noservice at . or anything definite.

Publishing a database containing rubbish is not a good service to the Internet 
community anyway.

Whether that checking can lead to a characterization, via listing, that mail or 
web operators can use when vetting external input can be established at a 
further time.


Best
Ale
-- 

> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

On it, but will take a while...