RE: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Re: Abuse contact
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:59:22 +0100
>Isn't the IRT object dead?
What is your definition of "dead" here? :-)
>Personally, I think it's more important to require functional (!)
>email (!) contacts for inetnum objects (and allocate the necessary
>manpower to be able to investigate reports of broken addresses)).
My view of "functional" here is: reach a _human being_, within a
reasonable timeframe, who actually is _interested_ in receiving
complaints, and _following up_ on them.
What I see happening instead is that people register "disposable"*)
addresses for internet resources more often these days. Not a big
surprise - given the address harvesting practices of the spammers.
That's the reason why I don't believe attaching contact or abuse things
directly to the "leaf" inet[6]num objects will be a success in the long
run.
*) disposable: offered free of charge and anonymously by entites like
yahoo, lycos, gmx,... they work (i.e. messages get accepted), and if
they get full, or end up on too many spammers' lists you simply delete
them or "forget" about them and open a new one.
Wilfried.
_________________________________:_____________________________________
Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber@localhost
UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33
Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140
A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
