Validation of "abuse-mailbox"

Emails sent to "abuse-mailbox" require manual intervention by the recipient at some point, and may not be filtered, because in certain cases this might prevent receiving abuse reports, for example in a spam case where the abuse report could include the spam message itself or URLs or content usually classified as spam.

2.0 About the "abuse-mailbox" Emails sent to "abuse-mailbox": Require intervention by the recipient Must not require the reporter to complete a form Must guarantee that abuse reports and related logs, examples, or email headers are received

A simple process that guarantees its functionality and allows the helpdesks that deal with abuse reports to verify that validation requests actually come from the RIPE NCC and not from third parties (which might involve security risks), avoiding, for example, a single "direct" URL for validation. Avoid exclusively automated processing.

A simple process that guarantees the abuse contact is able to fulfil its intended purpose. Confirm that the resource holder understands the procedure and the policy, that they regularly monitor the abuse-mailbox, that measures are taken, and that abuse reports receive a response.

The second email will contain a unique alphanumeric validation code. The person in charge of the "abuse-mailbox" must go to the URL and paste the code received in the second email in the form. This URL must be designed in such a way that it prevents the use of an automated process (for example, "captcha").

As a matter of clarification, the “initial” and “escalation” validation periods may be modified by the RIPE NCC, if deemed appropriate, provided it informs the community of its motivation for doing so. For example, in the implementation phase, the periods could be extended, and adjusted as a higher percentage of contacts become accurate.

c. Alignment with other RIRs: A similar proposal has been accepted in APNIC (being implemented) and is under discussion in the LACNIC, AFRINIC and ARIN regions.

Alignment with other RIRs A similar proposal has been accepted in APNIC, abandoned in ARIN and is under discussion in the LACNIC and AFRINIC regions.

Confirm that the resource holder understands the procedure and the policy, that they regularly monitor the abuse-mailbox, that measures are taken, and that abuse reports receive a response.

This validation process will not check how the abuse cases are processed. The community should escalate/report back to the RIPE NCC, so anonymised statistics can be collected and periodically published.

Initial validation period of no longer than 15 days. If validation fails, escalate to other LIR contacts and set a new validation period not to exceed 15 days.

*The RIPE NCC may change the validation period depending on the level of accuracy of the contacts. For example, switching from a six-month to one-year period once contact accuracy has improved.

2.0 About the "abuse-mailbox" Emails sent to "abuse-mailbox": Require intervention by the recipient Must not require the reporter to complete a form Must guarantee that abuse reports and related logs, examples, or email headers are received

The role objects used for abuse contact information will be required to contain a single “abuse-mailbox:” attribute, which must receive messages, either for automatic (e.g. X-ARF/RFC5965/RFC6650) or manual reports about abusive behaviour originating in the resource holders' networks and must not force the sender to use a form.

5.0 Escalation to the RIPE NCC Fraudulent behaviour (for example, an "abuse-mailbox" that only replies to the RIPE NCC's emails or to messages with a specific subject or content), or failure to comply with the remaining aspects of this policy (incorrect or lack of responses to abuse cases) can be reported to the RIPE NCC for a re-validation as per section 4.0.

The community should escalate/report back to the RIPE NCC, so anonymised statistics can be collected and periodically published.

This proposal aims to solve this problem by ensuring the existence of a proper abuse-c contact and establishing a process for its utilisation.

Appeal: The proposer appealed against the decision of the WG Chairs on October 5, 2020 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/policy-announce/2020-October/000569.html Outcome of the Appeal: October 26, 2020 - The WG Chairs Collective (WGCC) decided to uphold the decision of the Co-Chairs of the Anti-Abuse Working Group. https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/policy-announce/2020-October/000571.html

Alignment with other RIRs A similar proposal has been accepted in APNIC, abandoned in ARIN and is under discussion in the LACNIC and AFRINIC regions.

References: A similar proposal has been accepted in APNIC (already implemented) and LACNIC. It is under discussion in AFRINIC. ARIN has a similar policy.