[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
ox
andre at ox.co.za
Fri Oct 6 08:54:14 CEST 2017
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 08:35:14 +0200 Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > Hi, always good to hear your voice :) > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 08:13:32AM +0200, ox wrote: > > clearly you are supportive of this as non support of this makes no > > sense other than to derail ethical and moral behavior towards public > > owned allocated resources. > > That's an invalid conclusion. Someone might share the same goal > ("have a robust registry with valid contact information") but still > disagree with the particular means - any policy change needs to be > weighted (at least) against "does it achieve the set goal?" and "does > the extra effort imposed relate positively to the effect". > okay, but with respect. yours is an invalid conclusion. even when re-reading your reply above: my opinion on your reply is that you are being economic with your truth. > Which is why I'm not speaking up in favour or against this proposal > either. I share the goals ("robust registry") but I have my doubts > that this is going to achieve much - those that have good > documentation today will have a bit more work, and those that do not > care will continue to not care, finding ways to fulfill the policy, > but still not caring. > if nobody cares then nothing will happen, yet, there is a need for something to happen. My central point is this: +++++ requiring abuse email (RR data) to be valid and functional is a very basic tenet (as it relates to morality and ethics as well as RR "goals") +++++ > We can force people to have abuse mailboxes that trigger a response if > a mail from the RIPE NCC is received. > this is perfectly fine, imnsho, as it indicates receipt of communications, even if it is autoresponded. it just cannot autorespond: that this is a non monitored mailbox - as by definition, in this proposal, it has to be functional. functional implies that it can receive and respond to communications and is not a "black hole" or dev/null > We (as in "the 10 people that speak up their mind here") can not > force them to have working abuse handling, as in, infected customer > systems gets fixed, IoT shit gets tracked down and disconnected, > malicious customers get thrown out. > of course. the point is not to 'force' anyone to do anything. the point is to have functional real contact data and information. see the basic tenet above... > Thus, ambivalence on the policy. > is this a good thing? please reconsider your ambivalence? all it takes is for a few good people....(Edmond Burke...) > Gert Doering > -- long time handler of abuse@ Andre ditto
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]