On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 20:47:36 +0100 Alexander Isavnin <isavnin@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the reminder!
Better late than never.
I strongly oppose to this proposal.
1) With a lot of words about improving trust and safety in Proposal's summary, there is no evidence about issues with trust and safety with uncheked "abuse-c:"
I posted an actual IP with an auto responder that requires web form completion - where the web form itself has so many hoops and is broken. You did not bother telling me that I made a mistake or that the example company suddenly changed their behavior? Instead you simply choose to post: "there is no evidence about issues"
2) In my experience, real abusers have all their contacts valid (and responsive).
In my experience not 100% of abusers have their contacts valid and not 100% responsive. Never mind that there is no such thing as "real abusers" (abusers are abusers), some companies simply drop incoming abuse-c, some companies have fake auto responders, etc. etc.
3) Why only abuse-c have to be checked? There are a lot of different contacts or information, that could be verified.
Sure, but this is anti-abuse-wg
Also, RIPE NCC executive just got extraordinary powers to revoke resources.
This is just fake news / and / a completely incorrect/wrong statement. If you still think I am wrong - please elaborate and supply evidence.
So we have to be very carefull with policies, which may lead to resource revocation just because of e-mail issues (i had such issues with RIPE NCC mail servers).
Also completely wrong because it is built on a wrong statement.
Plus all other arguments against or concerning about this proposal, raised in discussion previously.
sure, this makes a lot of sense :)
Kind regards, Alexander Isavnin
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum