I think this community let's the perfect be the enemy of the possible.
Just because there are traffic rules doesn't mean people don't violate
them. But they violate them much less.
See, what I fear is, that at some stage states will start to regulate,
because the industry fails to do so. And usually that is not fun.
So I support Jordi in that we should demand this. Yes there will be
Bullet proof hosters, but maybe a lot of the others will actually
comply, exactly because they are not bullet proof hosters.
We do this in many other places, it's called voluntary norms for
responsible behaviour, and is seen as a great tool to improve things.
Happy to explain more if there is an interest.
Best
Serge
On 01.11.23 10:21, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 10:10:45AM +0100, jordi.palet--- via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
We had a policy proposal to ensure that the abuse mailbox was valid and
monitored, but this community didn???t liked it. In other regions it works and
it proven to be a very valid tool.
You failed to demonstrate why "the mailbox is monitored in a way that
satisfies the proposed policy" would imply "the ISP in question suddenly
gets interested in acting against abuse". Especially those that promote
themselves as "bulletproof hosting".
This is what the community did not like - added bureaucracy with no
provable gain.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
Dr. Serge Droz
Member, FIRST Board of Directors
https://www.first.org
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
