Hi Ronald,
El 14/1/20 0:17, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette"
<anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net en nombre de r...@tristatelogic.com> escribió:
In message <55d65bf8-a430-4bdc-ae58-63ff3dca4...@consulintel.es>,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote:
> Section 2.0 bullet point #2. What's wrong with web forms?
>
>If I need to use a web form, which is not standard, for every abuse
report...
OHHHHHHHHHHH! Your proposal did not make it at all clear that the
web forms you were making reference to were ones that the resource
holder might put in place in order to provide a way for abuse
victims to file a report.
I agree completely that those things are intolerable, and I will go
further and say that any resoirce holder who puts such a form online
should properly be consigned to the fifth ring of hell.
Sorry! I had misconstrued. When your proposal mentioned web forms
I had assumed that you were making reference to some form that the
RIPE NCC might put online and that the resources holders would need
to type something into (e.g. a unique magic cookei) in order to
fully confirm that they are in fact receiving emails to their
documented abuse reporting email addresses.
No worries. I will tidy up the text to make it clearer! Thanks!
I think that the verification email messages that RIPE NCC sends out
resource holders should indeed contain a link to web form, on the RIPE
web site, where the recipient resource holder should be required to
make at least some minimal demonstration that it has at least one
actual conscious and sentient human being looking at the inbound
emails that are sent to its abuse address.
Please clarify in your proposal what exactly your use of the term
"web form" was intended to convey. TYhank you.
> 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 issue
> within 72 hours then they might as well be dead, because they
> have abandoned all social responsibility.
>
>I fully agree! My original proposal was only 3 working days, but the
>community told me "no way". This was the same input I got in APNIC
>and LACNIC (in both regions it reached consensus with 15 days).
>
>So, I will keep 15 days ...
I think this is provable, and also transparently obvious and colossal
bullshit, but that's just my opinion.
And mine!, but as a proposal author, I need to try to match as much as possible
the wishes of the community.
I say again. Things happen on the Internet in milliseconds. Any
service provider that can't react to an email within 72 hours should
be removed from the Internet of Responsible Adults and relegated to
the agricultural industry, or to the study of geology, or at any rate
to some profession where things are calm and leisurely, perhaps
including the delivery of regular postal mail.
If anyone wants to make his fortune by being an absentee landlord,
just gathering in revenue and not taking any day to day responsibility
for anything, let them get into the vacation rentals business and get
the **** off the Internet.
Regards,
rfg
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
