Hi, On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:38:28AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:36:10AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
So it is not just easier to ask the abuse-c mailboxes that don't want to process to setup an autoresponder with an specific (standard) text about that, for example:
"This is an automated convirmation that you reached the correct abuse-c mailbox, but we don't process abuse cases, so your reports will be discarded."
I would support that.
... but it's actually way too complicated to implement. A much simpler approach would be to make abuse-c: an optional attribute (basically, unrolling the "mandatory" part of the policy proposal that introduced it in the first place) - If you want to handle abuse reports, put something working in. - If you do not want to handle abuse reports, don't. The ARC could be extended with a question "are you aware that you are signalling 'we do not not care about abuse coming from our network'?" and if this is what LIRs *want* to signal, the message is clear. The NCC could still verify (as they do today) that an e-mail address, *if given*, is not bouncing (or coming back with a human bounce "you have reached the wrong person, stop sending me mail" if someone puts in the e-mail address of someone else). MUCH less effort. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279