[db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tobias Knecht
tk at abusix.com
Wed Nov 9 23:40:25 CET 2016
> In the problem statement, I think it would be a good idea to address the > existence of the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute as well. This is causing a lot > of confusion over the proper usage of "abuse-c:". With the right > implementation, we should end up in a position to remove "abuse-mailbox:" > altogether. > The problem imho with the abuse-mailbox is, that it still exists in places where it should not exist and is misused in certain cases. The difference between an email attribute and the abuse-mailbox attribute is, that email is for person to person messages, while abuse-mailbox is used for automated reports. This is been used very actively and very successful by a lot of network operators and organizations that send automated reports. I'd object to remove the abuse-mailbox attribute. On another note I find it slightly strange, that in almost every threat about abuse-c the topic of data accuracy is brought up, but policy proposals like the abuse-c for legacy space has been withdrawn due lack of consensus. Thanks, Tobias -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20161109/6f870fd6/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]