[anti-abuse-wg] How to find abandoned networks (was Spam FAQs need revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] How to find abandoned networks (was Spam FAQs need revision)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] How to find abandoned networks (was Spam FAQs need revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Shane Kerr
shane at time-travellers.org
Wed Dec 14 09:34:23 CET 2011
Suresh, On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 07:17 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > So - hiding stuff from the whois is just not going to cut it as much > as RIRs fixign their process, and SPs adopting best practices. To be clear, I'm not advocating hiding things in the Whois, I just don't see any value in spending resources to find unresponsive contacts if the only point is to label them in the Whois. I guess when you are trying to report a problem it can save the effort of sending an e-mail if the address has no contact. But I figure that most reporting is automated at least a little, so overall the actual efficiency gained is minimal. Now if there was some actual implications about the resource - which to be honest, means revoking the allocation - then it would make sense. The problem is, others have pointed out, making a requirement to have an abuse e-mail role that replies to messages is such a low bar it actually has no real value. But maybe others think that forcing address holders to set up an e-mail autoresponder is worthwhile? -- Shane
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] How to find abandoned networks (was Spam FAQs need revision)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] How to find abandoned networks (was Spam FAQs need revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]