[anti-abuse-wg] 2010-09 New Policy Proposal (Frequent Update Request)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-09 New Policy Proposal (Frequent Update Request)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-09 New Policy Proposal (Frequent Update Request)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
julien tayon
jul at julbox.net
Tue Nov 9 16:23:36 CET 2010
Le 09/11/2010 16:03, Jamie Stallwood a écrit : > What happens if: > > * A named maintainer for a assigned subnet is not a LIR in their own > right? > * There is a typo in an email address and it bounces? Well, mail delivery status are easy to check :) > * A small LIR with only one maintainer (or even just a PERSON object) is > unable to respond, say for instance they had a car accident or > something? > As it is a function abuses normaly point in best case scenario to a ticketing system where mail should be archived & then dispatched to a person, but where anyone could take over the historic in case something happens. It also permits auditing... Ticketing system are usually linked to best practices such as evaluating urgency/importance of mails before dispatching them to different teams, and these systems scale & are easy to install so even one single person could use it without any noticeable drawbacks & some interests (such as easily handing over some of the tickets when the load grows). And since support is a well documented function of the enterprise and its tools are pretty easy to use ... there should be no worries. -- Julien Tayon
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-09 New Policy Proposal (Frequent Update Request)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-09 New Policy Proposal (Frequent Update Request)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]