<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=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-IN" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">As long as the ASNs that are not maintaining an abuse address are published along with the no complaints list, I personally have no complaints.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, 4 May 2020 at 3:59 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi,<br>
<br>
On 29/04/2020 13:22, Gert Doering wrote:<br>
> <br>
> If people *want* to handle abuse reports, they do so today already<br>
> (and if they mess up their mail reception, the NCC will check this today<br>
> already, and let them know).<br>
> <br>
> If people *do not want* to handle abuse reports, this proposal will not<br>
> make them.<br>
<br>
<br>
The above is unquestionable truth. There is a grey area, where a mailbox<br>
doesn't work because of misconfiguration, mailbox full, or similar issues.<br>
Validation might help in those cases.<br>
<br>
However, statements like:<br>
<br>
The �abuse-c:� will be mandatory for all aut-nums<br>
<br>
are in conflict with the unquestionable truth quoted above. Please, allow<br>
abuse-c to be empty! I have to keep a dont-send list of non-responding abuse<br>
addresses. Some 70% of the complaints I would have sent hit that list. It<br>
would be more practical to have an empty abuse-c entry in the first place.<br>
<br>
In addition, having networks without abuse addresses makes them more easily<br>
identifiable. RIPE NCC could compile the relevant IP addresses into an easily<br>
usable format, for example one readable by rbldns. Rather than following-up<br>
and threatening resource revocation, upon repeated validation failures, the<br>
RIPE NCC should just remove the non-working abuse-c entry, thereby adding the<br>
relevant IP addresses to the "no-complaints" list.<br>
<br>
A web form to report bouncing abuse addresses would be useful too.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best<br>
Ale<br>
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>