Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Re: Abuse contact
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:08:23 +0200
"Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" woeber@localhost writes:
>>Isn't the IRT object dead?
>
> What is your definition of "dead" here? :-)
I've seen no deployment so far, and I pretty much doubt we see
large-scale use.
>>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.
In general, I agree, but quite a few addresses fall into the "bounces
immediately" category.
> 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.
I don't see why the same problem shouldn't resurface with the IRT
object, after some time. As long as RIPE or some other entity doesn't
receive funds to aggressively review those objects and flags offenders
in some way, I don't see a real, long-term advantage.
In addition, large shops, the people who care about security tend to
have no word over the contents of WHOIS records. 8-(
