[db-wg] Action item 47.2: Proposal for Adding Abuse Contact
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Action item 47.2: Proposal for Adding Abuse Contact
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Action item 47.2: Proposal for Adding Abuse Contact
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Niall O'Reilly
niall.oreilly at ucd.ie
Tue Apr 13 18:44:05 CEST 2004
On 13 Apr 2004, at 17:23, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > This simple counting approach is potentially VERY misleading, Sure. That's why I took care to call it a starting point! 8-) > as it is > not the sheer _number_ of individual entries which should be counted, > but the _size_ of the address blocks covered in this hierarchy. Fine. So ALL the numbers can be scaled down. Does the scaling affect the different methods I suggested (or others: I'm sure someone must have better concrete ideas?) differently, or similarly ? > On top of that, there's the possibiltiy to use the hierarchy to e.g. > provide a "1st-line" contact for an individual address block AND a > fallback or upstream for the encompassing block. Again, does this skew the argument, or just scale everything down in proportion ? Best regards, Niall
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Action item 47.2: Proposal for Adding Abuse Contact
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Action item 47.2: Proposal for Adding Abuse Contact
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]