[anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Fw: 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 10:30:00 CET 2020
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, Hi, (please see inline) > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 07:23:38AM +0000, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >> 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. > > So why is it preferrable to send mails which are not acted on, as > opposed to "not send mail because you know beforehand that the other > network is not interested"? I think Serge already took care of that answer/issue :-) And in our case we do count the # of bounces we get resulting from the abuse complaints we send out. > I can see that it is frustrating - but I still cannot support a policy > change which will not help dealing with irresponsible networks in any > way, but at the same time increases costs and workload for those that > do the right thing alrady. I guess you are not convinced with the 10 min/year argument then :-( >> 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? > > "a known contact" and "an *abuse-handling* contact" is not the same thing. I don't really like the case where "a known contact" is used as a last resort contact because there is an abuse issue. Hence, the value i see on a mandatory definition of an abuse contact -- while any network can still decide to use the same contact for both (or more) purposes. Cheers, Carlos > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Fw: 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 ]