[anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Wed Jan 15 08:23:38 CET 2020
Hi, I obviously don't speak for the incident handling community, but i think this (making it optional) would be a serious step back. The current situation is already very bad when in some cases we know from the start that we are sending (automated) messages/notices to blackholes. To an extreme, there should always be a known contact responsible for any network infrastructure. If this is not the case, what's the purpose of a registry then? Regards, Carlos On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, Leo Vegoda wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:48 AM Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > > [...] > >> A much simpler approach would be to make abuse-c: an optional attribute >> (basically, unrolling the "mandatory" part of the policy proposal that >> introduced it in the first place) > > This seems like a simple approach for letting network operators > indicate whether or not they will act on abuse reports. If there's no > way of reporting abuse then the operators clearly has no processes for > evaluating reports, or acting on them. This helps everyone save time. > > Regards, > > Leo Vegoda >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]