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 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 reached the correct abuse-c > > mailbox, but we don't process abuse cases, so your reports will be > > discarded." > > I would support that.
... but it's actually way too complicated to implement.
A much simpler approach would be to make abuse-c: an optional attribute
(basically, unrolling the "mandatory" part of the policy proposal that
introduced it in the first place)
- If you want to handle abuse reports, put something working in.
- If you do not want to handle abuse reports, don't.
The ARC could be extended with a question "are you aware that you are
signalling 'we do not not care about abuse coming from our network'?"
and if this is what LIRs *want* to signal, the message is clear.
The NCC could still verify (as they do today) that an e-mail address,
*if given*, is not bouncing (or coming back with a human bounce "you have
reached the wrong person, stop sending me mail" if someone puts in the
e-mail address of someone else).
MUCH less effort.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
