<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=ES link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Hi Leo,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>El 13/1/20 18:16, "Leo Vegoda" <<a href="mailto:leo@vegoda.org">leo@vegoda.org</a>> escribió:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Hi Jordi, all,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:58 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <<a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Hi all,<br><br>I'm working in a new version of the proposal 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox").<br><br>In the last discussion phase, the only detailed response to this proposal that I got was from Carlos Friacas (which I will respond in detail later-on, as this may also help to revive the discussion).<br><br>The main question/issue here is still that the actual policy is just a "technical validation". It confirms that there is a mailbox but it doesn't confirm that:<br>1) Accept emails for abuse reporting<br>2) The mailbox is the right one and not from someone else, not related to the abuse processing<br>3) The mailbox is attended and not a black-hole, so nobody pay attention to the abuse reports, or even worst, not full<br><br>Anything not fulfilling that is useless (as will not fulfil the mission for that mailbox), and then we don't need an abuse-c at all.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Can you please clarify what you mean by "fulfil the mission for that mailbox" and the "intended <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>I was referring about the goal of the abuse-c (even without this policy proposal). Why we want it if is not a real one, able to get abuse reports, and so on?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>purpose" you mention in section 3.1 of the new text? </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The reason I ask is that the purpose does not seem to be defined in an earlier section. My reading of what you have written is that this became policy it would require that reports can be made and that these reports must be acknowledged. But it seems that there would be no obligation for reports to be investigated or acted upon.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>I will love to have in the policy that they must be investigated and acted upon, but what I heard from the inputs in previous versions is that having that in policy is too much and no way to reach consensus …<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Have I misunderstood what is intended?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Leo Vegoda<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><br>**********************************************<br> IPv4 is over<br> Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br> http://www.theipv6company.com<br> The IPv6 Company<br> <br> 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.<br> <br> </body></html>