Andre writes:
probably, yes. if ai is advanced enough to deal with incoming communications in an acceptable fashion, this will be just fine.
- your trust in your ai would be most commendable and as imho, ai will be running everything in a few years anyway, this is perfectly acceptable
Andre, please accept my apologies for writing about the "Turing test", it was meant lightheartedly but has confused the issue. It is my fault for being flippant. I didn't envisage that a true AI would handle would such enquiries. I was pointing out two areas that are problematic, separately: 1. The RIPE NCC may not recognise an auto-responder when they see it, if it has been tailored to them specifically (and to achieving a formal but spurious compliance); and 2. A response by a real human being may be just useless as a bounce message, if constrained by policy. That is to say, if all the human is permitted to do is choose from a small range of stock responses (such as directing the person making the enquiry to some pre-written FAQ) then this is equivalent to an autoresponder, so why prohibit (deem non-compliant) only the automated response? However from Hervé's reply I see that a less ambitious bar is being set, and an autoresponder is acceptable, whether a human autoresponder or a software one. I have my doubts that this really achieves anything useful, but at least it is clear. On 25/09/2017 11:34, ox wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:55:09 +0100 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
Scenario 1: An LIR directs e-mail sent to their abuse-cc: address to an auto-responder that says "This mailbox is not monitored by a human being", and advises on alternate "support services" (e.g. a FAQ, a webform that feeds a ticketing system etc). Is RIPE NCC intended to mark the attribute as invalid in this scenario?
there is no point to have an email address that does not exist or is not monitored.
if or when email ever stops working and is replaced by alternate "support services" this will be a good timeTM to accept non monitored email addresses
but to granularly define generally accepted forms of communications, is pointless as there will always be a good reason for whatever form of communication, to not be suitable or acceptable to someone.
take mobile, or phone numbers, it can easily be argued "but i am not available to take calls" or whatever... - everything always has exceptions, it is whether those exceptions are generally reasonable or not and/or generally acceptable.
Scenario 2: An LIR filters incoming e-mail sent to their abuse-cc: address. Email from RIPE NCC gets "priority treatment", i.e. is directed to someone who passes a Turing test administered by the NCC. E-mail from anyone else gets the same treatment as in scenario 1.
Is Scenario 2 compliant with the policy? If not, how is RIPE NCC supposed to know to mark the attribute as invalid? What tests are the NCC supposed to administer? And what must an LIR do to pass them?
probably, yes. if ai is advanced enough to deal with incoming communications in an acceptable fashion, this will be just fine.
ianal but, there are legal implications, if your ai receives x notice, replies, etc.
- your trust in your ai would be most commendable and as imho, ai will be running everything in a few years anyway, this is perfectly acceptable :)
Andre
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA