[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

I would like to clarify the effect of this proposal.

The proposal states:
"The RIPE NCC will validate the “abuse-mailbox:” attribute at least
annually. If no valid reply is received by RIPE NCC within two weeks
(including if the email bounces back), the “abuse-mailbox:” contact
attribute will be marked as invalid."


Scenario 1: An LIR directs e-mail sent to their abuse-cc: address to an
auto-responder that says "This mailbox is not monitored by a human
being", and advises on alternate "support services" (e.g. a FAQ, a
webform that feeds a ticketing system etc). Is RIPE NCC intended to mark
the attribute as invalid in this scenario?

Scenario 2: An LIR filters incoming e-mail sent to their abuse-cc:
address. Email from RIPE NCC gets "priority treatment", i.e. is directed
to someone who passes a Turing test administered by the NCC. E-mail from
anyone else gets the same treatment as in scenario 1.

Is Scenario 2 compliant with the policy? If not, how is RIPE NCC
supposed to know to mark the attribute as invalid? What tests are the
NCC supposed to administer? And what must an LIR do to pass them?

Malcolm.

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA