On Tue 05/Dec/2023 15:17:59 +0100 Gert Doering wrote:
On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 09:40:22AM +0000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
The claim is that the change in policy had an impact in other regions.
If that is true then where is the data to backup that assertion?
Especially: saying "it feels less painful to send abuse complaints", aka
"there is less bounces" is not the same as "there is less abuse" or "more
people properly handle abuse requests directed to them now"
"Getting a bounce from an ill-maintained abuse mailbox" might actually
be more insightful than "the mail is delivered just fine, but then ignored"
- nothing in these proposals will force the receiver to deal with the mail
properly, so getting abounce actually sends a clear signal "please just
block this target network" instead of raising hopes.
That's right. Rather than having, for example:
Responsible organisation: Oliv Evelyn
Abuse contact info: nore...@lighost.com
inetnum: 162.19.141.192 - 162.19.141.195
netname: OVH_293642614
where the address obviously bounces, it would be clearer to have an established
way to say there is no abuse team. Empty, noservice@. or anything definite.
Publishing a database containing rubbish is not a good service to the Internet
community anyway.
Whether that checking can lead to a characterization, via listing, that mail or
web operators can use when vetting external input can be established at a
further time.
Best
Ale
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
On it, but will take a while...
--
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
