[anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Wed Nov 10 15:06:36 CET 2010
>> As Leo said yesterday. At the moment, if you encounter an IRT, this >> is somewhat an indication those guys (or gals) take it seriously and >> so you can expect the data to be correct and the people behind it >> responsive. To a certain point the same goes for the abuse-mailbox >> attribute. The single that people actually added this optional >> attribute means at least the spent some time thinking about it. > > I disagree here. We see loads of wrong addresses in the abuse-mailbox > attributes. We do not see loads of them in IRT, because 280 IRT objects > do not give us a huge data base. > > And again, you can not judge "only" on the fact, that something is > existing or not. We see as well loads of abuse@ addresses being > published in abuse-mailbox attributes blocking incoming spam reports > because the filter says "This is spam!". > > In my opinion and I have seen other people here suggesting the same > things, if we are thinking about reputation, we have to think about > several levels of reputation. > > If the IRT object would be mandatory: > > We could differentiate between networks having an IRT Object in place > and the networks that do not have them in place. --> Policy Ignorant That's about the same as it is now...policy ignorant or uneducated. Insert Hanlon's razor here. So this proposal doesn't change a thing. Groet, MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]