<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="EN-IN" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div class="WordSection1"> Might as well wind this WG up. I have been on it for years and don’t see much progress at all.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> As for “I don’t know what is consensus” – if someone can tell me just how consensus according to your definitions was achieved by having various RIPE regulars just happen to be in the room during an AOB session when Cox was absent to vote him out, I’ll stand enlightened.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> --srs<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container"> <div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Date: Friday, 1 December 2023 at 6:22 PM To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Report ignored. What to do as next?<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> It will make some organizations start handling reports that didn't do it before. We tried this in Switzerland, sending all ISPs abuse data asking them to deal with it. In the beginning, very little enthusiasm, today most do. None of these proposals have ever been tries, yet your you insist on knowing they don't work. Let's try it and see what happens. If you insist on 100% guarantees you'll never change anything. This is, why in the IETF you can't simply say no, but you have to come with an alternative. So to that I challenge you. With this attitude the internet wouldn't exist. Sounds like the "Seat belts don't work" fraction back in the day. But I'll shut up now and focus on more constructive discussions elsewhere. Best Serge On 01.12.23 13:22, Laura Atkins wrote: > None of this will make a company who doesn’t want to deal with abuse > complaints deal with abuse complaints. It’s a total waste of resources. > > laura > >> On 1 Dec 2023, at 10:53, U.Mutlu <security@mutluit.com> wrote: >> >> For each complaint to RIPE NCC then such an >> (automated) email should be sent by the RIPE NCC >> to the abuse-c of that member. >> This should be the absolute minimum that should be done by the RIPE NCC. >> >> >> Matthias Merkel wrote on 11/30/23 11:47: >>> The proposal is to send verification emails to abuse mailboxes and >>> have a link >>> in them clicked, right? I would have no objection to that. >>> >>> Is there more that is being proposed in this proposal specifically? >>> >>> — >>> Maria Merkel >> >> >> >> -- >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or >> change your subscription options, please visit: >> <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> > > -- > The Delivery Expert > > Laura Atkins > Word to the Wise > laura@wordtothewise.com > > Delivery hints and commentary: <a href="http://wordtothewise.com/blog">http://wordtothewise.com/blog</a> > > > > > > > -- Dr. Serge Droz Member, FIRST Board of Directors <a href="https://www.first.org">https://www.first.org</a> -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a><o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>