Hi Jordi, all, On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:58 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg < anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
> Hi all, > > I'm working in a new version of the proposal 2019-04 (Validation of > "abuse-mailbox"). > > In the last discussion phase, the only detailed response to this proposal > that I got was from Carlos Friacas (which I will respond in detail > later-on, as this may also help to revive the discussion). > > The main question/issue here is still that the actual policy is just a > "technical validation". It confirms that there is a mailbox but it doesn't > confirm that: > 1) Accept emails for abuse reporting > 2) The mailbox is the right one and not from someone else, not related to > the abuse processing > 3) The mailbox is attended and not a black-hole, so nobody pay attention > to the abuse reports, or even worst, not full > > Anything not fulfilling that is useless (as will not fulfil the mission > for that mailbox), and then we don't need an abuse-c at all. Can you please clarify what you mean by "fulfil the mission for that mailbox" and the "intended purpose" you mention in section 3.1 of the new text? The reason I ask is that the purpose does not seem to be defined in an earlier section. My reading of what you have written is that this became policy it would require that reports can be made and that these reports must be acknowledged. But it seems that there would be no obligation for reports to be investigated or acted upon. Have I misunderstood what is intended? Thanks, Leo Vegoda
