Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
All, On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 14:46 +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
As it is written I support this proposal. I am worried about the implication that an "abuse-c:" will be forced on all allocations. Without clear policies about what is required of such an abuse handling role, then organisations can simply set this to an unanswered mailbox, which doesn't actually improve the situation. But since that is not explicitly written in the proposal, I support the proposal. :) -- Shane
On 01/Dec/11 14:53, Shane Kerr wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 14:46 +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
You can find the full proposal at:
As it is written I support this proposal.
Thank you for the support.
I am worried about the implication that an "abuse-c:" will be forced on all allocations. Without clear policies about what is required of such an abuse handling role, then organisations can simply set this to an unanswered mailbox, which doesn't actually improve the situation.
I'm worried about that too. If LIRs don't cooperate, the situation won't improve. Moreover, skeptics will tend to think that the sole purpose of having an abuse-mailbox, possibly geared to /dev/null, is to free admin/tech-c mailboxes from unwanted spam complaints. If LIRs cooperate, there are some questions that I'd put, such as * What software is available to allow LIRs to operate reasonably without requiring them to consecrate a full blown team to sorting out spam complaints originating from their customers' operations? (I'd guess that forwarding complaints to the relevant mailbox provider, while monitoring their trend, could be the basis of a reasonable behavior.) * What is the correct (global) site for related discussion?
But since that is not explicitly written in the proposal, I support the proposal. :)
Thanks also for doing that distinction.
Some way to weed out all the fake LIRs that started this discussion in the first place would obviate this entire discussion On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
If LIRs cooperate, there are some questions that I'd put, such as
* What software is available to allow LIRs to operate reasonably without requiring them to consecrate a full blown team to sorting out spam complaints originating from their customers' operations?
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
participants (3)
-
Alessandro Vesely -
Shane Kerr -
Suresh Ramasubramanian