On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 09:42:09 +0000 Wolfgang Tremmel <wolfgang.tremmel@de-cix.net> wrote:

I support this policy and IMHO an automated check is "good enough" If someone asks how this could be done I suggest reading rfc2821

IMHO requiring human interaction would deliver too many "false negatives". People suggesting a captcha I guess have never worked at a helpdesk or in any customer support function....

you mean in practical "real life" work? practically, abuse admins and people that actually deal with abuse are able to solve a capcha and tick a box. what this will prevent (to a certain degree) are 'automated' bots that exist simply to prove that something exists and not that something is actually attended to or is "real" (as in rfc2821 is so not relevant to the objective of the policy and the existence of a functional abuse@ as all an rfc2821 check will do is tell you that abuse@ can accept email many abuse-c addresses accept email (so an rfc2821 check will work) and then the mailbox responds: "this is an unattended mailbox and your email may never be seen or read by a human person. If you want to report abuse, please visit our website and click on "support" to ask a question in our forums" - or some similar drivel. Regards Andre

best regards Wolfgang

...

On 18. Jan 2018, at 12:20, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

Policy proposal 2017-02, "Regular abuse-c Validation" is now in the Review Phase.