On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:55:09 +0100 Malcolm Hutty <malc...@linx.net> wrote: > Scenario 1: An LIR directs e-mail sent to their abuse-cc: address to > an auto-responder that says "This mailbox is not monitored by a human > being", and advises on alternate "support services" (e.g. a FAQ, a > webform that feeds a ticketing system etc). Is RIPE NCC intended to > mark the attribute as invalid in this scenario? > there is no point to have an email address that does not exist or is not monitored.
if or when email ever stops working and is replaced by alternate "support services" this will be a good timeTM to accept non monitored email addresses but to granularly define generally accepted forms of communications, is pointless as there will always be a good reason for whatever form of communication, to not be suitable or acceptable to someone. take mobile, or phone numbers, it can easily be argued "but i am not available to take calls" or whatever... - everything always has exceptions, it is whether those exceptions are generally reasonable or not and/or generally acceptable. > Scenario 2: An LIR filters incoming e-mail sent to their abuse-cc: > address. Email from RIPE NCC gets "priority treatment", i.e. is > directed to someone who passes a Turing test administered by the NCC. > E-mail from anyone else gets the same treatment as in scenario 1. > > Is Scenario 2 compliant with the policy? If not, how is RIPE NCC > supposed to know to mark the attribute as invalid? What tests are the > NCC supposed to administer? And what must an LIR do to pass them? > probably, yes. if ai is advanced enough to deal with incoming communications in an acceptable fashion, this will be just fine. ianal but, there are legal implications, if your ai receives x notice, replies, etc. - your trust in your ai would be most commendable and as imho, ai will be running everything in a few years anyway, this is perfectly acceptable :) Andre
