Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

On 2017-09-25 18:33, Malcolm Hutty wrote: > Yes, I get that it will trigger on that. > > What I'm struggling with (I don't want to speak for Nick), is this: what > is the benefit of getting people to set it to a valid address that no > human reads, or no human capable of acting, over null or the

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:33:23 +0100 Malcolm Hutty wrote: > What I'm struggling with (I don't want to speak for Nick), is this: > what is the benefit of getting people to set it to a valid address > that no human reads, or no human capable of acting, over null or the > various

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

On 25/09/2017 16:41, Richard Clayton wrote: > In message <59c9148b.6010...@foobar.org>, Nick Hilliard > writes > >> So, to be clear, it would be fully policy compliant if someone: > >> - registers IP address space with the RIPE NCC, with contact information >> point to a PO box

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

Richard Clayton wrote: > #1 people who set the email address to nowh...@example.com > > #2 people who set the email address to nowh...@unregistereddomain.com > > #3 people who used to own unregistereddomain.com but forgot that email > addresses are using that domain in a RIPE object > > #4

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In message <59c9148b.6010...@foobar.org>, Nick Hilliard writes >So, to be clear, it would be fully policy compliant if someone: > >- registers IP address space with the RIPE NCC, with contact information >point to a PO box in Panama

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

A proposal to reclaim such IP space would be ideal --srs > On 25-Sep-2017, at 8:06 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > - registers IP address space with the RIPE NCC, with contact information > point to a PO box in Panama or BVI. > - sets up an abuse mailbox with an autoresponder,

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

[mailto:n...@foobar.org] Envoyé : lundi 25 septembre 2017 16:37 À : CLEMENT Herve IMT/OLN Cc : Malcolm Hutty; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Objet : Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve? herve.clem...@orange.com<mailto:herve.clem...@orange.com> wrote: > To be clear regarding the acce

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

herve.clem...@orange.com wrote: > To be clear regarding the acceptability of the auto-responder: > > It refers to "If no valid reply is received by RIPE NCC within two weeks > (including if the email bounces back), the “abuse-mailbox:” contact > attribute will be marked as invalid" So, to be

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

On 25/09/2017 14:26, herve.clem...@orange.com wrote: > With regard to your first scenario, the auto-answer you mention can be > considered as a valid reply, and the "support service" would help to > proceed with the abuse report. Hervé, Thank you for your reply. If an autoresponder directing

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

Andre writes: > probably, yes. if ai is advanced enough to deal with incoming > communications in an acceptable fashion, this will be just fine. > - your trust in your ai would be most commendable and as imho, ai will >be running everything in a few years anyway, this is perfectly >

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:55:09 +0100 Malcolm Hutty wrote: > Scenario 1: An LIR directs e-mail sent to their abuse-cc: address to > an auto-responder that says "This mailbox is not monitored by a human > being", and advises on alternate "support services" (e.g. a FAQ, a > webform

[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02: what does it achieve?

I would like to clarify the effect of this proposal. The proposal states: "The RIPE NCC will validate the “abuse-mailbox:” attribute at least annually. If no valid reply is received by RIPE NCC within two weeks (including if the email bounces back), the “abuse-mailbox:” contact attribute will be