Hi, On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:02:48AM +0100, Carlos Friaças wrote: > > There is no indication that the complications Jordi is proposing are > > an actual improvement in any metric, except "human life time wasted". > > Starting with "complications" is really not that constructive. > > If the process is too complex let's work on it, and make it simpler where > it is possible.
We have an existing process that is the result of a PDP discussed in this
very working group, reflecting community consensus on the balance between
checking and annoyance.
Nobody has made a convincing argument why this needs to be made stricter
and more time consuming.
> Trying to build a softer approach, maybe the NCC doesn't need to send
> _everyone_ a message twice a year, but if someone finds an abuse-mailbox
> to be unresponsive, then if it is mandatory to have a working
> contact/mailbox, the NCC could only get into the picture when someone
> detects that is not in place.
>
> Or is _that_ already in place...?
We *HAVE* a process to check abuse contacts.
We *HAVE* ARCs.
So, please state *first* what is wrong or insufficient with the current
process, and why these added complications would improve the end goal:
abuse reports sent to ISPs are handled "better" (in a to-be-defined
metric).
Note: taking away lifetime from the people doing abuse mail handling is
not going to make them more enthusiastic about doing their job.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
