[address-policy-wg] 2006-04 Draft Document will be produced (Contact e-mail Address Requirements)

Hello Michael,

On 9/26/06, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com <Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com> wrote:
> >     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-04.html
>
> This policy is directed at ISPs and at their customers.

What makes you think this?

>
> >Registration data (range, contact information, status etc.)
> >must be correct at all times (i.e. they have to be maintained).
> >Every organisation controlling an IP address should provide
> >at least one working contact e-mail address where notifications
> >of abuse emanating from that IP address can be sent.
>
> A company in the SPAM business could be in full compliance
> with this policy if they operate an auto-responder like
> RIPE's hostmaster mailbox, which replies to every email
> saying "Thank you for your concern. We will deal with
> the matter promptly". The net benefit to the Internet
> community would be zero.
>

yes, but it's not supposed to stop SPAM, just correct an old oversight,
that of an email address not being a required contact detail.

> >All persons and organisations assigned an IP address should
> >act to prevent abusive messages originating from that IP address.
>
> I don't believe that RIPE has any authority over what
> ISP customers do with their Internet connection. If
> a customer has a contract with and ISP for the purposes
> of originating abusive messages, then what authority
> does RIPE have to forbid this? On the other hand, if this
> is something which should be forbidden, who is the proper
> authority to take action? My answers are "None" and
> "National governments".
>

Would it be acceptable to you if it said:

|All persons and organisations assigned an IP address should
act to prevent abusive messages originating from that IP address
without their knowledge"  or smt similarly toothless??

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim