[anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Frank Gadegast
ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de
Thu Aug 2 13:42:31 CEST 2012
Tobias Knecht wrote: > Hi, Hi, > >>> An option could be the following: >>> the possibility to set the abuse-mailbox field to something like >>> "non-responsive", a predefined value, thats valid according >>> to the format of the field. The cleanup will happen, the resource owner >>> makes a decision and the reporter could see, that the >>> resource owner does not want to have reports (via email) ... >> >> That seems pretty reasonable to me. > > That could be an option. There is only one point I do not understand. We > are talking only about the direct allocations, which in my opinion > should all have an abuse address and handle their abuse. That is at > least my opinion. Yes, I agree. This should only be only an option for subdelegations. > As I understood Franks idea the resource holder would have to call > himself "non-responsive" and publish this information, which will > definitevely create problems in the future. Just thinking of blacklists > using this information and so on, so at the end the unresponsive will > add addresses that are deleting inbound messages. Which is of course not Also true, we could not hide the abuse mailbox field, if its set to "non-responsive", because lots of software depends on the presents of the field and will depend on a well-formed email address. Humans will also be confused, when its communicated, that its mandatory and it will be missing in some cases. Setting it to an a kind of generic not-used email address might not be an option too. Maybe there will be or is already a blacklist, thats collecting non-responsive resource holders, they could provide an email address ;o) > good either, but we could even proof that an unresponsive ISPs has > accepted mail on his given address. This can be interesting in legal > situations like Frank explained as well. > > So at the moment I think we have a solution that is easy and > understandable for everybody and tries to solve a lot of possible > scenarios. I would rather not change things into a direction that makes > specific scenarios impossible just to make it "easier" for reporters to > manage things from a bounce handling or deliverability perspective. I think so too, its was just an idea that is not really leading to anything until somebody else come up with an idea how this non-responsive address could be formed ... > And on the other hand, we (abusix) are sending more than 500k reports > per day to different ISPs all over the world using whois information and > yes around 30% are bouncing. So what? We are not even looking at the > bounce messages. Next time we try again to deliver messages. This is at > the end not a real problem for reporting parties. And I would not put to > much attention on it. > > On the long end I would rather like to see something like ARIN is doing > with wrong contact information. Tagging whois entries if the data that > is provided is not accurate and resource holders are not cooperative. Well sayd. Kind regards, Frank > > > Thanks, > > Tobias > > > > > > > -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- MOTD: "have you enabled SSL on a website or mailbox today ?" -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank at powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ======================================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]