Hi Gert Sorry I misunderstood you then. But honestly, this does not really place a burden on you.
RIPE can automate this, and you simply reply to a message. We do this, e.g. in TF-CSIRT twice a year, and it does help, event the good guys, that realize they have an issue and did not receive their mail. In fact, it's become a bit of a competition to be the first to reply to the challenge. So the extra work is what, 10 minutes / year, if the system is setup properly? So I think the balance is hugely positive. Just my two cents. Serge On 15/01/2020 09:18, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 09:14:59AM +0100, Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >> I kind of don't buy into "There is no point on placing a burden on orgs >> that choose not to act". > > This is not what I said. My stance on this is: placing extra burdens on > orgs *that do the right thing today* (with extra verification hoops) > should be balanced against "will it change the situation wrt orgs that > do not care". > > And I think the balance is negative - extra work for the good guys, and > no relevant incentive for the bad guys to actually *act on* their abuse > reports. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- Dr. Serge Droz Chair, Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) Phone +41 76 542 44 93 | serge.d...@first.org | https://www.first.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
