I think Max's point was that others don't process mail reports, , which is true, because why would they.
The problem, in my view is not, that they are overwhelmed by spam, because you can filter spam. And still let legitimate abuse complaints get through. But it's work. That's all why I think building another mechanism is not going to solve the issue. It's work to set it up, and even more work to process the complaints. And doing so helps others, respectively offloads the cost of abuse to others. Folks that already now don't bother won't bother in the future, unles not bothering is more expensive than bothering. But in the past we couldn't agree on making it more expensive to permit abuse than to tolerate it. So, I'm afraid we won't change a thing, but please prove me wrong. Serge On 29 July 2026 17:57:19 CEST, Heather Schiller <[email protected]> wrote: >Have you looked at Abusix? They have tools to manage abuse mailbox, parse >various log types, and include a mechanism for building playbooks to >automate handling. > > --h > >On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 11:14 AM Max Grobecker < >[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I hope this is the right list to discuss. >> >> I'm seeing more and more providers auto-responding to abuse reports mailed >> to their "abuse-mailbox" address, stating that this mailbox will not be >> monitored and urging you to use some form on their website. >> And often enough, those forms are either only usable for very specific >> types of abuse or they are just tedious to use and sometimes I suddenly >> don't want to report spam or phishing anymore to that specific provider >> when I see a form with 20+ input fields. >> Besides that, it renders automatic reports useless, even those that are >> meant to be automatically processable (i.e., containing information as >> XARF). >> (Surely, automated reports are a very special topic, but as a provider we >> are grateful to receive prompt reports of abuse on our network.) >> >> >> This raises the questions: Is there – at least for the RIPE region – any >> sort of requirement to accept/process abuse reports by mail? >> >> While I'm sometimes a bit "pissed" about how bad reporting forms can be, I >> understand why providers might not want to maintain abuse mailboxes anymore >> (the amount of spam sent towards these addresses is hilariously large) and >> instead rely on forms with captchas to tackle this problem. >> >> So I'm wondering: Would there be a benefit for building some standardized >> HTTP API with an authentication system, that would allow providers to >> automatically send authenticated abuse reports to other providers? >> That could work in a similar way like DKIM does: The sending provider >> needs to publish a private key somewhere in the RIPE database, signs the >> report, and the receiving provider would be able to immediately verify that >> signature. >> And if you get a ton of false reports or even spam from a specific >> provider you can still filter these out based on the sender information in >> the signature. >> >> >> I would like to hear your opinion on this, or maybe there already *are* >> solutions I just don't know about yet (besides from manually reporting >> 20-30 phishing mails a day over 30 different forms). >> >> >> Thanks and greetings >> >> Max >> ----- >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, >> please visit: >> https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/security-wg.ripe.net/ >> As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with >> the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. >> More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/security-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
