[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Niall O'Reilly
niall.oreilly at ucd.ie
Sat May 18 18:48:41 CEST 2019
On 18 May 2019, at 9:38, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: > El 18/5/19 10:35, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> escribió: > > I have an idea. > > I will set up a service where everyone can have an e-mail address > which > will totally follow everything you propose as validation mechanism > - like, > click on tokes, report back in 10 minutes (even in the middle of > the > night), etc. - LIRs that want to be spared this annoyance can just > pay > me 50 EUR/month, and I'll handle all these chores for them. > > So, this would totally fulfill your proposed policy, and not help > in any > bit with *abuse handling*. > > That automated system will be against the policy. I've already worded > it out in such way that is not possible this type of "work-around the > policy", at least it was my original intent to avoid it. I wonder how words can make anything impossible. I also wonder how to implement a dependable Turing Test for distinguishing between what Gert suggests ( a kind of "Mechanical Turk") and a real human. Just saying. Niall
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 New Policy Proposal (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]