Hi Denis, > 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 we have to accept that, whether we like it or not. The only way to force someone (unless you come from the 'shoot first, ask questions later' fraction) is via the legal system. > 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. Let's extrapolate that line of thought, from the point of view of the one wanting to ignore reports (which is, btw, not the same as ignoring abuse...): - I need abuse-c? fine: devn...@example.com - oh, it has to exist? abuse@<lir.eu>, FWD to /dev/null - and now I have to answer? auto-reply is cheap. - human answer? Wally, please take care of that. And with each step the life of the *reporter* becomes more frustrating. Again, as a reporter I prefer no data (which is also data...) over wrong data any time. So the only part that might deserve attention is the people that is not aware of the abuse-c. Lobby them, inform them, harass them until they make a choice, whatever it is. And then respect the choice. best, Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 2, avenue de l'Université LU-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette tel: +352.4244091 fax: +352.422473
