<div>Well the operators are already free to decide if and when they respond to abuse reports.</div> <div> </div> <div>But this farcical system should not be legitimised by weak imbeciles such as those on this list.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <blockquote class="threadBlockQuote" style="border-left: 2px solid #C2C2C2; padding-left: 3px; margin-left: 4px;">--------- Original Message --------- <div>Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox") From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Date: 1/14/20 8:50 pm To: "anti-abuse-wg" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Looks fine to me. If we really think that the operators should be free from taking abuse reports, then let's make it optional. As said, I personally think that an operator responsibility is to deal with abuse cases, but happy to follow what we all decide. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 14/1/20 10:47, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> escribió: Hi, On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:38:28AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:36:10AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > > So it is not just easier to ask the abuse-c mailboxes that don't want to process to setup an autoresponder with an specific (standard) text about that, for example: > > > > "This is an automated convirmation that you reached the correct abuse-c mailbox, but we don't process abuse cases, so your reports will be discarded." > > I would support that. ... but it's actually way too complicated to implement. A much simpler approach would be to make abuse-c: an optional attribute (basically, unrolling the "mandatory" part of the policy proposal that introduced it in the first place) - If you want to handle abuse reports, put something working in. - If you do not want to handle abuse reports, don't. The ARC could be extended with a question "are you aware that you are signalling 'we do not not care about abuse coming from our network'?" and if this is what LIRs *want* to signal, the message is clear. The NCC could still verify (as they do today) that an e-mail address, *if given*, is not bouncing (or coming back with a human bounce "you have reached the wrong person, stop sending me mail" if someone puts in the e-mail address of someone else). MUCH less effort. 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 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company 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. </div> </blockquote>