[acm-tf] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal

On 14/Oct/11 17:20, Peter Koch wrote:
> 
> Making the "abuse-c" mandatory does still not sound convincing to me.
> For that "role" like object (somewhere between tech-c/role/irt) the details need
> to be hashed out, but i'm struggling with the attribute "abuse-mailbox"
> for two reasons: 1) it carries legacy; 2) it is inconsistent with other
> objects: we say email: in both tech-c and admin-c kind of objects and
> do not say  tech-mailbox or admin-mailbox;
> 
> If we want to differentiate between plain text/prose (email:) and ARF like reporting,
> then let's define a second attribute, e.g., "automated-report" or the likes.

Yes, I proposed similar names ("role-mailbox", "report-mailbox",
"abuse-reports-to", on 11 Oct, but cannot find it in the archives...)

We obviously cannot mandate what format complainants will use.
Suggesting best practices is also beyond our scope.  Most likely, we
cannot even mention what minimal processing should received complaints
undergo.

At any rate, when a LIR has set its abuse-c, its customers will
inherit it and thus satisfy any mandate that we might have imposed.
Hence, making the "abuse-c" mandatory won't serve the purpose of
motivating or informing mailbox providers.

> Creating a reference to an abuse-role will need authorization
> (either by maintainer or otherwise).

Yes.  If they don't fully trust the customer, they can keep the
contact internally and forward the complaints, after counting them.
Is this also out of scope, even as an informal suggestion?

> The question of a 'bottom up' or 'top down' search for the abuse-role reference
> is one of the presentation system, not necessarily inherent to the DB, unless the
> DB ought to support search advice. More precisely, is there a point in enabling,
> say, the ISP to add their abuse-object to responses where a customer provided their
> own. I think there are pros and cons in both directions.

IMHO, the more to the bottom the better, as long as one can trust that
complaints are being taken care of.  The count-and-forward model might
minimize network traffic, with respect to a complainant sending CCs to
upper ISPs, as forwarded messages are likely transmitted on a network
provider's own wires.