On 04/Sep/11 17:55, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > 4. Forwarding Abuse Reports From Local Users > > Shouldn't the forwarding be to the abuse team of the source IP address > in addition to the abuse team of an authenticated sending domain?
A very interesting question. I didn't dare recommend that, as it would amount to two messages (or more, if targeting also higher level allocations) for each abuse report. It would be a bit better to send a report to the IP team and have them forward it to the domain, but not all ISPs would be willing to cooperate. Perhaps, MPs can realize whether reporting abuse to a given domain sorts any effect, and switch to reporting to the IP team as soon as it is clear that the domain does not react. > Also, shouldn't the fallback be to use the abuse team of the source IP > address rather than the abuse team of an unauthenticated sending > domain? Absolutely, if there is an abuse team for the IP. > 5. Receiving Abuse Reports From Other Mailbox Providers > > I strongly disagree with "The obvious correction for an acknowledged > policy contravention is to remove the email address of the original > recipient from whatever storage it was retrieved from for sending the > reported message, including mailing lists." The obvious correction is > to remove *all* addresses for which consent was not given, not just to > listwash. Yeah, but since we don't know whether consent was actually given, we cannot assume they do. <OT>Even in countries where consent is mandatory, mailbox providers are not entitled to collect list subscriptions on behalf of their users. That way, users are confined to annotate on paper whom the gave consent for what, with the sole computer support of possible monthly reminders: a quite ineffective "time-distributed" database...</OT> _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
