Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

2020-04-28 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 12:31:39PM +1000, No No wrote: > I would also like to make another suggestion: > > That where the RIPE has to manually verify an abuse mailbox, the costs of > that verification should be levelled against the resource holder as a fee, > for example: $2 per IPv4 address

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

2020-04-28 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 12:25:08PM +1000, No No wrote: > So, what are you seriously suggesting? Because these people that become > offended at the suggestion that it's unreasonable for someone to ensure an > email address is valid once per year (very onerous i'm sure), never really > say what

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

2020-04-28 Thread Job Snijders
Dear "no no", who are you? what is your skin in this game? Kind regards, Job

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

2020-04-28 Thread No No
I would also like to make another suggestion: That where the RIPE has to manually verify an abuse mailbox, the costs of that verification should be levelled against the resource holder as a fee, for example: $2 per IPv4 address and, failing manual verification, that a countdown be implemented an

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

2020-04-28 Thread No No
In relation to the policy, where it says: "must not force the sender to use a form." as someone that reports phishing websites, I find the use of forms helpful, as it ensures the company receives the report, particularly where they implement a CAPTCHA. To require the resource to only accept abuse

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

2020-04-28 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 08:27:32PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > The proposal needs to be abandoned. Yep. gert -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.:

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

2020-04-28 Thread Nick Hilliard
Petrit Hasani wrote on 28/04/2020 15:01: A new version of RIPE policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of "abuse-mailbox"", is now available for discussion. The updated version of this policy proposal is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04/draft The proposal has

[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-04 Discussion Phase (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

2020-04-28 Thread Petrit Hasani
Dear colleagues, A new version of RIPE policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of "abuse-mailbox"", is now available for discussion. This proposal aims to have the RIPE NCC validate "abuse-c:" information more often and introduces a new validation process. Most of the text has been rewritten follo

[anti-abuse-wg] Second Call for Agenda Items - AA-WG @ RIPE80

2020-04-28 Thread Brian Nisbet
Colleagues, RIPE 80 will be taking place in Berlin from the 11th - 15th May. All of the details about the meeting can be found here: https://ripe80.ripe.net/ The Anti-Abuse Working Group session is currently timetabled for 09:00 CEST on Thursday 14th May. If you would like to raise anything a