On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
(please see inline)
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 07:23:38AM +0000, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
I obviously don't speak for the incident handling community, but i think
this (making it optional) would be a serious step back. The current
situation is already very bad when in some cases we know from the start
that we are sending (automated) messages/notices to blackholes.
So why is it preferrable to send mails which are not acted on, as
opposed to "not send mail because you know beforehand that the other
network is not interested"?
I think Serge already took care of that answer/issue :-)
And in our case we do count the # of bounces we get resulting from the
abuse complaints we send out.
I can see that it is frustrating - but I still cannot support a policy
change which will not help dealing with irresponsible networks in any
way, but at the same time increases costs and workload for those that
do the right thing alrady.
I guess you are not convinced with the 10 min/year argument then :-(
To an extreme, there should always be a known contact responsible for
any network infrastructure. If this is not the case, what's the purpose
of a registry then?
"a known contact" and "an *abuse-handling* contact" is not the same thing.
I don't really like the case where "a known contact" is used as a last
resort contact because there is an abuse issue. Hence, the value i see on
a mandatory definition of an abuse contact -- while any network can still
decide to use the same contact for both (or more) purposes.
Cheers,
Carlos
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
