nanog mailing list archives
Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes
From: Matt Harris <matt () netfire net>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 09:51:17 -0500
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org> wrote:
This is a solvable problem. If they're sending unsolicited bulk email (aka "spam"), then they are, by definition, spammers. Block them and move on. If/when they decide to send proper DMCA notices and send them to the proper address, perhaps you can then allow them to petition for the privilege of access to your mail system. ---rsk
But then the question becomes "how are they supposed to find the 'proper address' for their reports?" If you run a whois server and link it from your RIRs or create a custom "DMCA Compliance" POC in the RIR listings then you could maybe list that sort of thing there, but most address maintainers do neither, so by default whatever address is listed on those net block records with the RIR seems appropriate enough to me. There's no other established protocol for determining an appropriate contact (like calling the associated phone number and asking, or trying to determine your web url and browing that site for it, or something else much more involved.) If there should be a different protocol established for that, then we need to figure it out and document that and get a critical mass of reporters to buy in to it.
Current thread:
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes, (continued)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Jérôme Nicolle (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Michael Hallgren (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes John Levine (Aug 05)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Daniel Corbe (Aug 05)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes nusenu (Aug 08)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Rich Kulawiec (Aug 05)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Daniel Corbe (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Jérôme Nicolle (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes John Levine (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Daniel Corbe (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Matt Harris (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes valdis . kletnieks (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Matt Harris (Aug 06)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes John Levine (Aug 07)