It will make some organizations start handling reports that didn't do it before.
We tried this in Switzerland, sending all ISPs abuse data asking them to deal with it. In the beginning, very little enthusiasm, today most do.
None of these proposals have ever been tries, yet your you insist on knowing they don't work. Let's try it and see what happens. If you insist on 100% guarantees you'll never change anything. This is, why in the IETF you can't simply say no, but you have to come with an alternative. So to that I challenge you.
With this attitude the internet wouldn't exist. Sounds like the "Seat belts don't work" fraction back in the day.
But I'll shut up now and focus on more constructive discussions elsewhere.
Best
Serge
On 01.12.23 13:22, Laura Atkins wrote:
None of this will make a company who doesn’t want to deal with abuse complaints deal with abuse complaints. It’s a total waste of resources.
laura
On 1 Dec 2023, at 10:53, U.Mutlu <security@mutluit.com> wrote:
For each complaint to RIPE NCC then such an
(automated) email should be sent by the RIPE NCC
to the abuse-c of that member.
This should be the absolute minimum that should be done by the RIPE NCC.
Matthias Merkel wrote on 11/30/23 11:47:
The proposal is to send verification emails to abuse mailboxes and have a link
in them clicked, right? I would have no objection to that.
Is there more that is being proposed in this proposal specifically?
—
Maria Merkel
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
--
The Delivery Expert
Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
laura@wordtothewise.com
Delivery hints and commentary: http://wordtothewise.com/blog
--
Dr. Serge Droz
Member, FIRST Board of Directors
https://www.first.org
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg