Hi Job Interesting but I don't think this is for Joe Public who receives spam or phishing emails and wants to complain about them. I can't see your average non techie internet user downloading software to make a complaint. cheersdenis From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> To: denis <ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk> Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>; Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie>; andre@ox.co.za; RIPE DB WG <db-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Monday, 7 March 2016, 21:19 Subject: Re: [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01 On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:17:00PM +0100, denis wrote:

On 07/03/2016 16:49, Randy Bush wrote:

...

...

In the absence of an abuse contact mailbox attached to address registration data, can you make some constructive suggestions about how a recipient of internet abuse can get in contact with the people who manage the address block and who, by implication, are likely to have some form of contractual relationship with whoever is instigating the abuse?

i am not against having an abuse-c: field.  i am against making it mandatory.  all that'll get us is black holes.

What you are really saying here is that you are willing to accept that many network managers don't want to handle abuse complaints. So make it optional and let them leave it blank.

As a community are we willing to accept that many networks simply don't want to handle abuse complaints? Or do we want it mandatory and then as a next stage tackle these black holes with devnull.

there are other ways to handle abuse on both reporting & resolving side. what seems to be the populair way these days is publishing abuse in feeds and subscribing to those feeds, no email involved. example: https://abuse.io/