<div>correction: year 2020*</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="threadBlockQuote" style="border-left: 2px solid #C2C2C2; padding-left: 3px; margin-left: 4px;">--------- Original Message ---------
<div>Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")<br />From: "Fi Shing" <phishing@storey.xxx><br />Date: 1/16/20 10:03 am<br />To: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net><br /><br />
<div>Sergio, that would make too much sense.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This mailing list is not only not even considering what you have said, but they are trying to remove the requirement of a network operator to even receive emails about complaints at all.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Pathetic.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It's the year 2019, and these "people" on this list (probably cyber criminals or are paid by cyber criminals to weaken policy) come here and say this garbage.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="threadBlockQuote" style="border-left: 2px solid #C2C2C2; padding-left: 3px; margin-left: 4px;">--------- Original Message ---------
<div>Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")<br />From: "Sérgio Rocha" <sergio.rocha@makeitsimple.pt><br />Date: 1/15/20 8:16 pm<br />To: "anti-abuse-wg" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net><br /><br />Hi,<br /> <br /> Maybe we can change the approach.<br /> If RIPE website had a platform to post abuse report, that send the email for<br /> the abuse contact, it will be possible to evaluate the responsiveness of the<br /> abuse contact.<br /> <br /> This way anyone that report an abuse could assess not only the response but<br /> also the effectiveness of the actions taken by the network owner. After some<br /> time with this evaluations we would easy to realize who manages the reports<br /> and even who does not respond at all.<br /> <br /> Sérgio <br /> <br /> -----Original Message-----<br /> From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of<br /> Gert Doering<br /> Sent: 15 de janeiro de 2020 08:06<br /> To: Carlos Friaças <cfriacas@fccn.pt><br /> Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>; anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net><br /> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation<br /> of "abuse-mailbox")<br /> <br /> Hi,<br /> <br /> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 07:23:38AM +0000, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg<br /> wrote:<br /> > I obviously don't speak for the incident handling community, but i <br /> > think this (making it optional) would be a serious step back. The <br /> > current situation is already very bad when in some cases we know from <br /> > the start that we are sending (automated) messages/notices to blackholes.<br /> <br /> So why is it preferrable to send mails which are not acted on, as opposed to<br /> "not send mail because you know beforehand that the other network is not<br /> interested"?<br /> <br /> I can see that it is frustrating - but I still cannot support a policy<br /> change which will not help dealing with irresponsible networks in any way,<br /> but at the same time increases costs and workload for those that do the<br /> right thing alrady.<br /> <br /> <br /> > To an extreme, there should always be a known contact responsible for <br /> > any network infrastructure. If this is not the case, what's the <br /> > purpose of a registry then?<br /> <br /> "a known contact" and "an *abuse-handling* contact" is not the same thing.<br /> <br /> Gert Doering<br /> -- NetMaster<br /> --<br /> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?<br /> <br /> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael<br /> Emmer<br /> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann<br /> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)<br /> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279<br /> <br /> </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>