nanog mailing list archives
Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes
From: "John Levine" <johnl () iecc com>
Date: 5 Aug 2018 16:53:35 -0400
In article <em0d4f8349-621d-4edf-90ea-c8ab95df44d1@desktop-k5pu39b> you write:
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.
Seems to me that if you've registered your DMCA address in the Library of Congress database, and they send takedowns somewhere else, that's their problem, not not yours. If you haven't registered, you should. You can do the whole thing online in a couple of minutes. The fee is $6 per update no matter how many business names and domain names you register. See https://www.copyright.gov/dmca-directory/ R's, John
Current thread:
- Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Eric Kuhnke (Aug 03)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Ross Tajvar (Aug 03)
- Re: Best practices on logical separation of abuse@ vs dmca@ role inboxes Rich Kulawiec (Aug 04)
- 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 nanog (Aug 05)
- 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 nanog (Aug 05)
- 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)