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

Tue Aug 7 23:37:00 UTC 2018

John Levine:
> In article <em0d4f8349-621d-4edf-90ea-c8ab95df44d1 at 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/

thanks this is useful.

has anyone practical experience with how many of the usual DMCA 
email sending companies actually take this into account when they send
their automated emails?
Does creating a record there actually result in a substantial fraction of DMCA
emails being routed to the email address given there?

-- 
https://twitter.com/nusenu_
https://mastodon.social/@nusenu

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20180807/fb54909f/attachment.sig>