On Tue 05/Dec/2023 15:17:59 +0100 Gert Doering wrote:
On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 09:40:22AM +0000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
The claim is that the change in policy had an impact in other regions. If that is true then where is the data to backup that assertion?
Especially: saying "it feels less painful to send abuse complaints", aka "there is less bounces" is not the same as "there is less abuse" or "more people properly handle abuse requests directed to them now"
"Getting a bounce from an ill-maintained abuse mailbox" might actually be more insightful than "the mail is delivered just fine, but then ignored" - nothing in these proposals will force the receiver to deal with the mail properly, so getting abounce actually sends a clear signal "please just block this target network" instead of raising hopes.
That's right. Rather than having, for example: Responsible organisation: Oliv Evelyn Abuse contact info: noreply@lighost.com inetnum: 162.19.141.192 - 162.19.141.195 netname: OVH_293642614 where the address obviously bounces, it would be clearer to have an established way to say there is no abuse team. Empty, noservice@. or anything definite. Publishing a database containing rubbish is not a good service to the Internet community anyway. Whether that checking can lead to a characterization, via listing, that mail or web operators can use when vetting external input can be established at a further time. Best Ale --
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
On it, but will take a while...