Re: [anti-abuse-wg] *** Re: [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

IF receive complaints from public about abuse-c non functional THEN do additional verification On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 23:45:39 -0700 "Name" wrote: > IF email is from = "validat...@ripe.net" THEN deliver email, > ELSE, delete/auto-respond/jump through hoops. > > Original Message

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

IF email is from = "validat...@ripe.net" THEN deliver email,ELSE, delete/auto-respond/jump through hoops. Original Message Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation) From: ox Date: Wed, January 24, 2018 4:43

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:45:13 + Brian Nisbet wrote: > Just to be very clear, the current proposal is only in relation to > verification. > > If the community wish for other processes to be put in place in > regards to lack of action on abuse or similar, then that would > require a wholly dif

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

Dear Brian and Nick, On 2018-01-22 10:20:50 CET, Brian Nisbet wrote: > > After looking at the text from the "Validation method" section of the > > proposal, it looks like the RIPE NCC may be suggesting doing something > > like issuing an SMTP RCPT command to see if the mail server rejects the > >

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

Dear colleagues, On 2018-01-23 08:53:56 CET, Name wrote: > "Maybe when policy is violated, multiple times (more than once) and alsothen > notice by additional communication (phone?) and if that also failsthen loss > of resource is reasonable."This is too unfair on RIPE and no body (RIPE > inclu

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

Thomas, Just to be very clear, the current proposal is only in relation to verification. If the community wish for other processes to be put in place in regards to lack of action on abuse or similar, then that would require a wholly different proposal. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-W Th

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

On 23.01.2018 13:52, Name wrote: > Autoresponders/webforms should actually be encouraged, because a stand alone > email address means that all a spammer/attacker has to do to is flood that > email > account with bogus data and the valid reports will either get lost amongst > the > genuine ones

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

"An autoresponder asking people to fill out a webform should not be accepted as a valid solution"Autoresponders/webforms should actually be encouraged, because a stand alone email address means that all a spammer/attacker has to do to is flood that email account with bogus data and the valid report

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

On 22.01.2018 14:19, Gert Doering wrote: > I do see the need for a working abuse contact, and I do see the need of > sanctions in case a policy is violated, but "deregister all resources, > because your mail server was broken when we tested" is too extreme > (exaggeration for emphasis). I fully ag

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

On 22/01/2018 16:25, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:20:41PM +, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: >> it. (However, since I'm not sure the implementation process >> cannot just change without my consent, I still oppose it on this >> point, too) > > Actually, a question for the chair