[anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse ContactManagement in the RIPE NCC Database)

On 12/08/11 11:04, Tobias Knecht wrote:
> If the current system was so obvious to everyone:
> - why do so many data maintainers put abuse contact details in "remarks:"?

Until recently, the attribute trouble: existed. Then it was removed and 
moved all the data over to remarks-attribute.
At the same time, the abuse-mailbox:-attribute was created.
It is going to take at least another 10 years before all handles are 
updated to this standard.



> - why do so many users send complaints to email addresses found in
> "notify:" and "changed:" attributes?

I always send to all emails I can find when contacting unknown companies.
This is because the data accuracy is not always very good and I don't 
want to waste time resending my email.
Secondly, it can be difficult to know if tech-c or admin-c should 
receive the mail.
Adding abuse-c could make it even more difficult to decide. The 
works-all-the-time solution is to send to anyone.


> - why does anyone use "abuse-mailbox:", which has always been optional,
> when "admin-c:" has always been available?

Because the email:-attribute is by default hidden.
Abuse-mailbox: is the workaround.


> - The "admin-c:" has never been defined as an abuse contact. It is not
> reasonable to assume that everyone who linked an email address to that
> attribute wants to receive abuse complaints on that address, even if
> some do.

That doesn't really matter to me. They are responsible for the resource 
and can redirect my email to the proper person if they are unable to 
answer it.
Failure to respond is subject to existing ripe policies, although 
probably never practised.


> What if the administrative contact is not the place to report abuse to.
> Just because other companies are different then yours?
>

You are correct about that. Admin-c is always the end-user/customer 
(Ripe policy). The abuse-contact is however often an ISP/LIR or a 
comination of one/both/the other depending on the what the issue is.
An abusive user on a webforum is subject to admin-c while a hacker could 
be subject to the ISP abuse-c.