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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In message <59C9148B.6010605 at foobar.org>, Nick Hilliard
<nick at foobar.org> writes

>So, to be clear, it would be fully policy compliant if someone:
>
>- registers IP address space with the RIPE NCC, with contact information
>point to a PO box in Panama or BVI.
>- sets up an abuse mailbox with an autoresponder, where all emails are
>thrown into the bin
>- ignores all attempts at contact regarding abuse queries, whether from
>LEAs or not
>
>If this is the case, what problem is this proposal trying to solve?

#1 people who set the email address to  nowhere at example.com

#2 people who set the email address to  nowhere at unregistereddomain.com

#3 people who used to own unregistereddomain.com but forgot that email
addresses are using that domain in a RIPE object

#4 people whose company used to use abuse at brandA.com but have moved to
abuse at brandB.com and now brandA.com is a black hole because the
forwarding doesn't work on the new server

#5 people whose mail system is just broken

#6 people who host their email at Google think that Google will deliver
email to an abuse desk even when that email contains bad URLs

oops, I think the proposal doesn't cover #6 and should! because I see
this on a regular basis

Nevertheless, it's surely some improvement if RIPE detects when abuse
contact details are unintentionally broken....  but testing once a year
for that (rather than every couple of months) doesn't seem to be
sufficiently often to me.

- -- 
richard                                                   Richard Clayton

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary 
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBWckjpzu8z1Kouez7EQK2aQCgn0DyOnv3jVFb6YXXMiCJWzx8SmcAnRTr
l3dYTZpK9zVTunxvHgz1IXUf
=3Cxl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----