[anti-abuse-wg] Abuse-C attributes - required e-mail address contact method.
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse-C attributes - required e-mail address contact method.
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse-C attributes - required e-mail address contact method.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
peter h
peter at hk.ipsec.se
Tue Mar 17 07:39:22 CET 2015
On Tuesday 17 March 2015 01.42, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > My two cents... > > The person/company who proposed this proposal used the word "complainant" > to refer to someone (anyone) attempting to report a case of network > abuse to its source network administrators. > > Personally, speaking only for myself, I object to being called a > "complainant" or a "complainer", e.g. when I attempt to do the decent > thing and take up _my_ valuable time to notify responsible (?) network > administrators about something I feel that they themselves may want > to know about, and indeed should want to know about. > > Of course, the Powers That Be at many networks ... the bean counters > and the higher level managers... often view _any_ communication with > any party other than a paying customer as a waste of time and money, > and thus, the personel underneath these folks inevitably come to > develop an "us versus them" attitude which leads inevitably to viewing > reports generated by outsiders, aka non-paying customers, as "complaints" > and the senders as "complainers" whose only (or primary) goal is to > cost the receiving company time and money, rather than the opposite, > i.e. attempting to _help_ the receiving company. > > I would argue that it is this bean counter attitute that has itself > given rise to most of the abuse on the Internet, i.e. in the time since > the broad commercialization of the net in the mid 1990's. > > If you view receiving, understanding, and acting upon notifications > of bad behavior occuring on your network as nothing other than a > non-profit-generating cost sink, then you are entirely less likely to > ever actually *do* anything about such reports. And when you don't, > the word goes out among the bad guy communities on the Internet, and > your network ends up being the source of ever more network abuse. > This is just the (Darwinian) way things are. Opportunistic leeches > abound. If given safe homes, they and their activities proliferate. > > I generally expend a good deal of time and effort writing up any abuse > report I send. (Note that I say "report" not "complaint".) There are > plenty of ways that various networks have dreamed up to avoid reading > these "complaints", i.e. because they don't immediately or obviously > generate any instantaneous revenue or profits for the receipient networks. > The simplest method to avoid spending any non-profit-generating company > man hours on reading abuse reports is just to alias abuse at network to > /dev/null. If Virgin feels that reading incoming e-mail reports is not > worth their time, then I respectfully suggest that they simply enter > devnull at example.com into the abuse contact e-mail address fields for > all of their relevant RIPE database records. This will be maximally > efficient for all concerned. (There really is no more efficient way > for Virgin to process all of their incoming "complaints". And since they > _are_ clearly concerned about the efficiency of this process, that would > seem to be ttheir best solution.) > > > Regards, > rfg > > Wonderful ! A masterpiece ! Well formulated, well written and ON THE SPOT ! Thanks -- Peter Håkanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse-C attributes - required e-mail address contact method.
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse-C attributes - required e-mail address contact method.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]