[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:17:00PM +0100, denis wrote:
> On 07/03/2016 16:49, Randy Bush wrote:
> >>In the absence of an abuse contact mailbox attached to address
> >>registration data, can you make some constructive suggestions about
> >>how a recipient of internet abuse can get in contact with the people
> >>who manage the address block and who, by implication, are likely to
> >>have some form of contractual relationship with whoever is instigating
> >>the abuse?
> >
> >i am not against having an abuse-c: field.  i am against making it
> >mandatory.  all that'll get us is black holes.
> 
> What you are really saying here is that you are willing to accept that many
> network managers don't want to handle abuse complaints. So make it optional
> and let them leave it blank.
> 
> As a community are we willing to accept that many networks simply don't want
> to handle abuse complaints? Or do we want it mandatory and then as a next
> stage tackle these black holes with devnull.

there are other ways to handle abuse on both reporting & resolving side.
what seems to be the populair way these days is publishing abuse in
feeds and subscribing to those feeds, no email involved. example:
https://abuse.io/