Hi Gert,
I think that provides a very good way to actually define it, and also coincides
with my view point that it may be abuse for you and not for me, or the other
way around.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/2/22 19:39, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Gert Doering"
escribió:
Hi,
,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
Date: Tuesday, 15 February 2022 at 11:40
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE NCC Anti-Abuse Training: Next Steps & WG
Input
I don’t think we can, neither should, define what is abuse. Examples are ok,
but should be clear that are only examples of common considered abuse
activities and not necessarily inclusive/restrictive of all the possible
situations.
It all depends on the origin of the claim.
Simple
I think the problem comes from the original email, maybe edited from a previous
similar message and the html link is different from the text …
El 29/3/21 13:20, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Hans-Martin Mosner"
escribió:
Am 23.03.21 um 17:53 schrieb Brian Nisbet:
Colleagues,
RIPE
Even worst ...
You've read that, but automated systems will not do, just use the abuse mailbox.
Anyway, I think in general the information will get if an automated abuse
report is sent, will be not personal, but from an organization.
In fact, if they send personal data to the "abuser", I think
The policy proposal was precisely suggesting XARF, not enforcing it.
It is the smarter and cheaper way to resolve the problem for everyone.
I usually send (automated) in order of 1.000-1.500 abuse reports per day. It
will be impossible to handle even just 1% if I need to fill-in forms. I'm sure
12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: anti-abuse-wg on behalf of JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
Date: Thursday, 18 February 2021 at 15:59
To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Question about spam to
I see it in the other way around. Forms are not useful at all. You need to
manually fill in the form, unless you modify the automated reporting tools for
“each” “form-holder”. Many of them also ask you to create an account in their
ticketing system, but because you’re not their customer, you
18, 2021 at 1:58 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
In my experience, this is something you need to live with, and not filter
anything in the spam folder.
Why? Because it can be real spam (and then you can use the abuse contact of the
resource-holder for the addresses where the
In my experience, this is something you need to live with, and not filter
anything in the spam folder.
Why? Because it can be real spam (and then you can use the abuse contact of the
resource-holder for the addresses where the spam is coming from), when you
report abuse cases, to facilitate
Officer
RIPE NCC
> On 26 Oct 2020, at 09:39, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
>
> Hi Mirjam,
>
> See my responses below, in-line as many clarifications are clearly
required, not just because this appeal, but because there
El 26/10/20 9:40, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg" escribió:
Hi Mirjam,
See my responses below, in-line as many clarifications are clearly
required, not just because this appeal, but because there is a misjudgment of
the PDP itself.
Hi Mirjam,
See my responses below, in-line as many clarifications are clearly required,
not just because this appeal, but because there is a misjudgment of the PDP
itself.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/10/20 9:07, "Mirjam Kuehne" escribió:
Dear Jordi,
Regarding the appeal
Hi Alex,
The consensus is not measured in terms of “how much” support, but if the
objections have been refuted.
And, in case you missed that, the sentence “some clear support for the policy
during the discussion phase” is quoted from the Co-chairs email, not my words:
Hi all,
This appeal (attached in PDF) follows the process outlined by ripe-710 (RIPE
PDP).
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message
I don’t think this is correct, at least not for google, amazon, and other big
providers, which I send email with abuses every other day and they react to it
and resolve them.
El 8/9/20 16:33, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alex de Joode"
escribió:
As abuse notices might have legal
Hi Brian,
I’ve already sent you (and the co-chairs and policy officer) my rational for
disagreement yesterday.
I’m not sure if I need to copy to the list (I will read the PDP for refreshing
myself on the appeals process later on today) or how much I should wait for
your response before
Hi Brian,
I understand that the people can change their mind, for example, after other
comments or the IA, etc.
This is the same across different proposal versions, even editorial text
changes. People can change their mind.
However not stating a “mind change”, should be taken as
.
[Jordi] Yes, thanks a lot, specially the FTE point.
--
Petrit Hasani
Policy Officer
RIPE NCC
> On 20 Jul 2020, at 16:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
>
> Hi Petrit,
>
> Tks for the impact analysis!
>
> However, I
Hi Petrit,
Tks for the impact analysis!
However, I think there are some aspects not well covered.
1) It is clear, unless you can provide stats about that, that we don't really
know if the 92.5% of the automated validations check are *really* correct in
the sense of being able to receive
Because using a form mean a manual process.
You can't automate the forms, unless *all* the LIRs use the same form. If you
have a very small number of abuse cases to report, it may be feasible, but not
in normal circumstances.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 20/7/20 15:54, "anti-abuse-wg en
I've trouble to understand why you see "sharing info or files with information
of abuse records", is a legal penalty. The only "penalty" (filtering) is
imposed by other folks using those files and taking their own decision.
If they are doing anything wrong against the law, Andorra is not a safe
If I found that any of your IP addresses is abusing my networks, I've the
perfect right to black list your entire network and even more, make my decision
public, so others can follow my advice. Specially if you don't take measures to
log your network (despite is legally mandatory or not) and
If you can demonstrate that those are fake reports, then you have a base for a
court claim, even in Andorra.
LEA has the responsibility to investigate and find the real people behind that.
El 8/7/20 20:42, "anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net en nombre de
i...@fos-vpn.org" escribió:
All I
If I'm listing /24s, instead of addresses, and I clearly state, "within this
/24 the following IP addresses have been reported as abusers" and probably
other information such as "they do not resolve the abuse cases/they are
responding efficiently, etc.", I don't think there is anything wrong.
ode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode
On Wed, 08-07-2020 15h 08min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
In a couple of occasions (many years ago), some of the IPs under my
responsibility, were listed at spamhaus. I contacted them and got delisted, no
problem. Of cours
In a couple of occasions (many years ago), some of the IPs under my
responsibility, were listed at spamhaus. I contacted them and got delisted, no
problem. Of course, after that I took measures so my IP addresses are never
involved even by accident, in any "bad" activity: it is my duty.
My
Hi Alessandro,
Hi Jordi and all,
TL;DR: Fail2ban can deal with missing or non-responding abuse teams
automatically, without the need to load RIPE with extra costs.
[Jordi] Yes and not!
If you mean reporting to existing and *working* abuse-c, yes, but if the
abuse-c
Hi Petrit, all,
Thanks a lot for the clarification. I only discovered that once I was working
on the slide for tomorrow, as during the previous days discussion I always used
my original word proposal document.
I had the feeling that some of the points that we discussed in the last days
were
esely"
escribió:
Hi Jordy,
On Tue 12/May/2020 22:21:11 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> El 12/5/20 19:26, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
escribió:
>
> I think it is more useful instead of removing the address, markin
abuse-wg en nombre de Ángel González Berdasco"
escribió:
El mar, 12-05-2020 a las 22:21 +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-
abuse-wg escribió:
> You misunderstood me. I'm not advocating de-registration of IP
> resources. I
> meant to remove jus
I’m not sure if this is true in all the cases, because a physical person can
also have PI resources and then a personal email in the database.
There is one more point, which I’m discussing with the Spanish DPA in the
constitutional court, and it is the classification between personal and
Hi Alessandro,
El 12/5/20 19:26, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
escribió:
Hi Jordy,
On Tue 12/May/2020 11:34:19 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
>> El 8/5/20 20:18, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
e
Two quick points here:
The money collected by Data Protection Agency fines aren’t for the ones
claiming, but for the respective governments.
If the abuse country don’t have an agreement with the EU to collect that fine,
the EU can seize it later on, at any time, when there is a payment from
I don't think EU laws are useless towards non-EU countries that break them.
In the case of privacy, they will not be able to keep doing business with the
EU.
In a more understanding way, EU (or EU members) reach agreements with specific
countries so the sanctions can be applied as well,
Hi Nick, all,
In many situations "rough consensus" was reached after many versions. Sometimes
is a matter of finding the right balance, "the point in the middle" I was
referring before. Even if it takes 10 versions instead of just 2.
The issue is for the chairs, not an easy task, in the way to
I think we all need to re-read, from time to time, RFC7282.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 9/5/20 18:21, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Sérgio Rocha"
escribió:
Hi everyone
Otherwise we change the way the working Groups works it will remain unchanged
for ever.
I agree
Hi Nick,
El 8/5/20 23:58, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 08/05/2020 12:07:
> [Jordi] The job of the RIPE NCC is to implement the policies agreed
> by the community. Different folks may consider different pieces of
Hi Alessandro,
El 8/5/20 20:18, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
escribió:
On Fri 08/May/2020 13:28:10 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> Hi Alessandro,
>
> As I've indicated already several times (and not just in thi
Hi Sergey,
El 8/5/20 16:28, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Sergey Myasoedov via
anti-abuse-wg" escribió:
Dear Jordi,
> There are existing procedures for that in extreme cases.
I think it's now obvious that existing procedures does not work.
[Jordi] I don't think so, however if
Hi Alessandro,
As I've indicated already several times (and not just in this discussion), all
the RIRs have forms or other methods to escalate any issues.
The proposal is only changing "let's have stats".
El 4/5/20 12:29, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
escribió:
Hi,
However, I fully understand that the community prefer to do things in different
steps.
We initially asked for the abuse mailbox.
Then we added a technical validation.
Now I'm asking for a better validations and make sure that the reporting is
feasible. I'm not asking to verify if you handle
El 29/4/20 14:23, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Gert Doering"
escribió:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 01:44:42PM +0200, Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> >> Coming from the incident response side, I'm tiered of people constantly
> >> telling me, that issues are not their
El 29/4/20 13:18, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Elad Cohen"
escribió:
What is this ?
"However, the community should report any situation to the RIPE NCC, which can
provide (anonymous) periodical statistics to the community, which can take
further decisions about that."
Ripe
El 29/4/20 4:25, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de No No"
escribió:
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
Hi Nick, all,
I was waiting a few days because I though it will be easier wait for most of
the participants to be able to react and then try to summarize and respond to
all the comments in a single email.
I'm going to try to do it anyway with as fewer emails as I can. This means
trying to
I fully agree with Gert here.
The proposal is not trying to punish anyone, just to improve things, make sure
that errors are discovered and corrected, and for that we need to have stats
and tools.
And this is why it was also removed from this version text that we had in
previous versions
Maybe the point is not talking about illegal, but abusive or not.
Internet is about cooperation, if the community, in general believe that a
behavior is abusive, we have our policy system to define our rules so we do not
tolerate that behavior, and if that means not providing (or even
Tried that also, and doesn't work for OVH, for Digital Ocean some times.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 13/2/20 5:27, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Fi Shing"
escribió:
All OVH and DigitalOcean abuse reports must be submitted via the abuse
reporting forms on the website, or they
In my experience, OVH is one of the larger worlwide host of spammers, DDoS,
intrusion attempts (SIP, SSH, IMAP, SMTP, etc., etc.), etc., together with
cloudstar.is. Any criminal action you can think off … sure a IPs from OVH or
Cloudstar are involved!
I’m sure there are many other, but in
and Wales with company number 8576358.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:00 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
I will be fine with this (having RIPE NCC as an intermediator just to send the
abuse report), if instead of a web form (or in addition to it), it is possible
t
ance the
mailbox position in the validation queue.
Finally, IMHO:
On Tue 14/Jan/2020 10:24:42 +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> El 14/1/20 0:11, "Leo Vegoda" escribió:
>
>> It creates hope for reporters and wastes t
Hi Michele,
(changing the subject so we can correctly track this and following emails)
The last version is available here:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04
But the goal of this discussion is to understand what the community want, for
making a new version.
I think
I will be fine with this (having RIPE NCC as an intermediator just to send the
abuse report), if instead of a web form (or in addition to it), it is possible
to automate it, for example RIPE NCC also accepts x-arf via email.
RIPE NCC has the obligation to keep the information without disclosing
Hi Denis,
El 17/1/20 0:30, "ripede...@yahoo.co.uk" escribió:
Colleagues
I have just read this whole thread, it took a while (I should get sick more
often and spend a day in bed reading emails). I have a few points to make. Some
are similar to points already raised but I will
Hi Richard,
El 16/1/20 21:37, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Richard Clayton"
escribió:
In message , JORDI
PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg writes
>So, if I'm reading it correctly (not being a lawyer), a service provider
not
>acting against abuse
internet is a "wretched hive of scum and villainy" the
powers that be should allocate enough resources to deal with the problem.
--
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode
On Thu, 16-01-2020 17h 17min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
H
ara.nl | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode
On Thu, 16-01-2020 15h 18min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
Let’s try to see it from another perspective.
If you’re an electricity provider, and one of your customers injects 1.000 v
into the network and thus create damages to other cus
Hi Alex,
El 16/1/20 16:30, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alex de Joode"
escribió:
Hi Sara,
The issue with your statement below is that RIPE NCC cannot (legally, under
Dutch contract law) disconnect resources if a resource holder (or more likely
his customer) does not (properly)
icy, right? But if the ISP is not reacting at all, he is
risking that other operators block him, right?
That’s why I still believe that abuse-c must be mandatory, unless you clearly
state that you ignore abuse cases.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.01.2020 um 15:52 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg:
Hi Volker,
I don’t agree with that, because:
I believe the electricity sample I provided proves otherwise. My contract is
with the electricity provider (the Internet provider), so I need to complain to
them and they need to follow the chain.
For a victim, to complain directly to the customer
El 16/1/20 15:25, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette"
escribió:
In message ,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>I'm sure that this is the same in every EU country. Can we agree on that?
Quite certainly not! Doing so wo
Let’s try to see it from another perspective.
If you’re an electricity provider, and one of your customers injects 1.000 v
into the network and thus create damages to other customers (even from other
electricity providers), the electricity provider must have the means to resolve
the
Hi Sara,
While I fully agree with Sergio and yourself, the issue here is that this part
of your text
“Complete, accurate information goes hand in hand with a duty of care, of
promptly taking actions against abuse, and should be accompanied by a social
responsibility of trying to make
Hi Carlos,
El 15/1/20 22:58, "Carlos Friaças" escribió:
Hi,
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> In my opinion, the actual situation is the worst. We are validating over
"nothing".
t;Job Snijders" escribió:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:41:54PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> Exactly 2 minutes a year (1 minute each time you click the link in the
> email from RIPE NCC).
>
> And because you invest 2 minutes a year, you w
Hi Warren,
When some operators aren't responding to abuse cases, or when they are bouncing
emails, or you get a response from someone telling "sorry I'm not the right
contact for this, the email is mistaken", and many other similar situations ...
the operator is telling you "we don't care
Hi Leo,
El 15/1/20 18:09, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Leo Vegoda"
escribió:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:16 AM Serge Droz via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
[...]
> - Lastly: It makes our life as Incident responders easier to have a
> uniform way of sending reports, even
What we do today is not a validation if I can use Gert or Serge or any "null"
email in all my abuse contacts and nobody notice it, and then you start getting
abuse reports from other folks ... This is creating lots of wasted time to both
you and the abuse case reporters.
El 15/1/20 9:59,
Exactly 2 minutes a year (1 minute each time you click the link in the email
from RIPE NCC).
And because you invest 2 minutes a year, you will save a lot of time (many
hours/days) yourself, trying to report abuses to invalid mailboxes!
El 15/1/20 9:24, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Serge Droz
In my opinion, the actual situation is the worst. We are validating over
"nothing". We don't know how many of the "validated" mailboxes are real, or
even read, full, etc.
I will prefer a mandatory abuse-c which is validated in the way I'm proposing,
as it is being done in ARIN and APNIC and
Hi Ronald,
El 14/1/20 13:10, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette"
escribió:
In message <30174d32-225f-467e-937a-5bc42650f...@consulintel.es>,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>I think if we try to agree on those ratings,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>>Section 3.0 part 3. Why on earth should it take 15 days for
>>anyone to respond to an email?? Things on the Internet happen
>>in millseconds. If a provider is unable to respond to an i
This is the key point.
We already agreed to have a mandatory abuse-c.
We can change our mind and make it optional.
But one way or the other, should be a *real* one. A validation that can be
faked just using (for example) Carlos email, is not a good procedure. It
doesn't make sense at all.
We
Hi Nick,
Not really, I think you're reading a different text ... I'm not intending to
ask RIPE to verify if the operators resolve the abuse cases.
The point here is to amend the existing policy to do a *good* validation of the
abuse mailbox.
The actual policy only makes a "technical"
14/1/20 10:47, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:38:28AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:36:10AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> > So it is not just easier to ask the abuse-c mailbo
I think if we try to agree on those ratings, we will never reach consensus ...
So it is not just easier to ask the abuse-c mailboxes that don't want to
process to setup an autoresponder with an specific (standard) text about that,
for example:
"This is an automated convirmation that you
Hi Ronald,
El 14/1/20 0:17, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette"
escribió:
In message <55d65bf8-a430-4bdc-ae58-63ff3dca4...@consulintel.es>,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>Section 2.0 bullet point #2. What's wrong with web forms?
>
>If I need to use
Hi Leo
El 14/1/20 0:11, "Leo Vegoda" escribió:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:50 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
[...]
> I will love to have in the policy that they must be investigated and
acted upon, but what I heard from the input
Hi Randy,
As I just said, ideally we should ask for abuse-c reports to be procesed, but I
know many folks don't like it.
But at least, we need to make sure that if you have an abuse-c, it is a "real"
and "working" one so you're able to actually send the reports there. If
ignored, that's
Hi Ronald,
El 13/1/20 22:34, "Ronald F. Guilmette" escribió:
In message <6afc7d17-bac4-464c-8af8-2ad852d39...@consulintel.es>,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>I'm happy to hear other inputs, stats, data, etc.
Having only just read the proposal, my comments are few:
Hi Leo,
El 13/1/20 18:16, "Leo Vegoda" escribió:
Hi Jordi, all,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:58 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
Hi all,
I'm working in a new version of the proposal 2019-04 (Validation of
"abuse-mailbox").
In the last discus
Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
>
>
> On 23/05/2019, 09:00, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
via anti-abuse-wg" wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
>As v2 of 2019-03 is not yet published, according to the PDP, until
Hi all,
As v2 of 2019-03 is not yet published, according to the PDP, until the impact
analysis is completed, I've published a diff online at:
https://www.diffchecker.com/Fy6z4VYH
Regards,
Jordi
**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new
Hi Tarass,
El 21/5/19 16:18, "Taras Heichenko" escribió:
> On May 21, 2019, at 18:35, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
>
>
>
> El 21/5/19 15:32, "Gert Doering" escribió:
>
>Hi,
&
Hi Gert,
El 21/5/19 16:07, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
you are comparing the claimed cost savings on the side of the reporters
with the very real extra costs incurred on the side of the abuse handlers.
You can't do that, and come up with a positive result.
The
El 21/5/19 15:32, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
the whole point of your policy is the underlying assumption that people
are *not* acting in good faith, so why all of a sudden assume they are?
Is in the other way around. If you're acting in good faith, you should not have
a
Hi Gert,
El 21/5/19 14:37, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
you cannot know if someone complies with the policy in good faith or not.
And this is exactly the same for any other policies that we have adopted, and
that doesn't preclude us to adopt them, because in any membership
Hi Rich,
El 21/5/19 9:31, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Rich Kulawiec"
escribió:
This is a bad idea and should be abandoned.
The goal is fine: everyone/everything should have a valid abuse@ address
per RFC 2142, decades of best practices, and inherent accountability to
, as this is not necessarily linear.
Regards,
Jordi
El 18/5/19 19:07, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 10:43:11AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> My team has nearly sent out 6000 abuse reports (only about intrusion
> at
10:38:46AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> I have an idea.
>
> I will set up a service where everyone can have an e-mail address
which
> will totally follow everything you propose as validation mechanism -
like,
> cl
Hi Töma,
El 18/5/19 16:25, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Töma Gavrichenkov"
escribió:
On Thu, May 16, 2019, 11:42 PM Alex de Joode wrote:
It seems you want to verify that a human reads the abuse box.
This is actually a very bright proposal in view of the next generation economy.
Hi Nick,
El 18/5/19 15:38, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote on 18/05/2019 14:32:
> This will not work.
>
> Allowing every resource holder in the world to use their own form means
> that you need to develop tons
ly
{other specification, maybe with URL}
{api with url}
{'whatever'}
This would be more valuable for the whole global abuse handling process than
the burdensome time waster that is now proposed.
--
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221
On Sat, 18-05-2019 13h 31min, JORDI PALET MA
Hi Alex,
The intent of this policy is to ensure that the validation process is useful,
and that means ensuring that the inbox is working, real (not from somebody
else), monitored for abuse reports (automatically is ok if it really works, but
there must be a way for human participation), and
El 17/5/19 10:41, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Carlos Friaças via
anti-abuse-wg" escribió:
Hi All,
I'm not sure about the 6 month period (vs. 12 months), and probably some
details can be improved in further versions, but i do support this
proposal, which is clearly
El 18/5/19 10:35, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 10:28:45AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> So, please state *first* what is wrong or insufficient with the
current
> process, and why these added com
El 18/5/19 9:56, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Gert Doering"
escribió:
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
Internet is global, so local customs are from the "Internet planet".
El 17/5/19 12:16, "Gert Doering" escribió:
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 12:13:12PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Anyway, this is a curious thing ... last week I was asked in the LACNIC
meeting policy
My email client doesn't allow me to do it in a different way (Outlook for Mac).
If somebody is able to help, I'm happy. I can't change my client, for different
and long to explain business reasons.
Anyway, this is a curious thing ... last week I was asked in the LACNIC meeting
policy session
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
