[anti-abuse-wg] OT: 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Alessandro Vesely vesely at tana.it
Sun Dec 4 16:56:13 CET 2011
On 01/Dec/11 14:53, Shane Kerr wrote: > On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 14:46 +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06 > > As it is written I support this proposal. Thank you for the support. > I am worried about the implication that an "abuse-c:" will be forced on > all allocations. Without clear policies about what is required of such > an abuse handling role, then organisations can simply set this to an > unanswered mailbox, which doesn't actually improve the situation. I'm worried about that too. If LIRs don't cooperate, the situation won't improve. Moreover, skeptics will tend to think that the sole purpose of having an abuse-mailbox, possibly geared to /dev/null, is to free admin/tech-c mailboxes from unwanted spam complaints. If LIRs cooperate, there are some questions that I'd put, such as * What software is available to allow LIRs to operate reasonably without requiring them to consecrate a full blown team to sorting out spam complaints originating from their customers' operations? (I'd guess that forwarding complaints to the relevant mailbox provider, while monitoring their trend, could be the basis of a reasonable behavior.) * What is the correct (global) site for related discussion? > But since that is not explicitly written in the proposal, I support the > proposal. :) Thanks also for doing that distinction.