[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Job Snijders
job at ntt.net
Mon Mar 7 21:19:37 CET 2016
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:17:00PM +0100, denis wrote: > On 07/03/2016 16:49, Randy Bush wrote: > >>In the absence of an abuse contact mailbox attached to address > >>registration data, can you make some constructive suggestions about > >>how a recipient of internet abuse can get in contact with the people > >>who manage the address block and who, by implication, are likely to > >>have some form of contractual relationship with whoever is instigating > >>the abuse? > > > >i am not against having an abuse-c: field. i am against making it > >mandatory. all that'll get us is black holes. > > What you are really saying here is that you are willing to accept that many > network managers don't want to handle abuse complaints. So make it optional > and let them leave it blank. > > As a community are we willing to accept that many networks simply don't want > to handle abuse complaints? Or do we want it mandatory and then as a next > stage tackle these black holes with devnull. there are other ways to handle abuse on both reporting & resolving side. what seems to be the populair way these days is publishing abuse in feeds and subscribing to those feeds, no email involved. example: https://abuse.io/
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]