[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Mon Sep 25 18:28:50 CEST 2017
Richard Clayton wrote: > #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. Wouldn't using the existing ARC process work for #1-#4? Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]