Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

Unless the e-mail is to the contact on file with the FCC, it isn't an official DMCA take down request, so the request 
is garbage. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Daniel Corbe" <dcorbe () hammerfiber com> 
To: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuhnke () gmail com>, "nanog () nanog org list" <nanog () nanog org> 
Sent: Sunday, August 5, 2018 2:43:36 PM 
Subject: Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes 



On 8/4/2018 01:04:17, "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuhnke () gmail com> wrote: 

> If you were setting up something new from a clean sheet of paper design 
> - 
> do you consider it appropriate to have an abuse role inbox that's 
> dedicated 
> to actual network abuse issues (security problems, DDoS, IP hijacks, 
> misbehavior of downstream customers, etc), and keep that separate from 
> DMCA 
> notifications? 
>
> Automated sorting tools *can* pull things which match regexes for 
> automatically-generated DMCA notifications out of an inbox and route 
> them 
> to the appropriate place. 
>
> However, I'm pondering whether it's better to have an ISP's ARIN IP 
> space 
> whois entries state clearly that copyright violation type notices 
> should go 
> to a dedicated-purpose dmca@ispname inbox. 

The main issue with the notion of keeping abuse@ separate from a 
dedicated DMCA takedown mailbox is companies like IP Echelon will just 
blindly E-mail whatever abuse POC is associated with either the AS 
record or whichever POCs are specifically associated with the NET block. 

So it becomes kind of difficult to keep them routing to different 
places. 

The guys doing the DMCA takedowns use automated tooling. So asking 
them nicely isn't going to help you. 

>