[db-wg] Re: abuse-c: proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: abuse-c: proposal
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: abuse-c: proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco d'Itri
md at Linux.IT
Fri Feb 6 21:33:23 CET 2004
On Feb 06, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: >operators, as we're paying the bills and supposedly ncc is >our service org. and perhaps we should reward clue. My requirements as an operator[1] are already fulfilled by irt objects, can you explain better what are yours? I think that the main flaw in these abuse-c/abuse-mailbox proposals is that they require modifying every most specific inetnum/inetnum6 object, while with irt I only need to add an attribute to the top level ones. I also think that the proponents should explain more clearly which of the various problems discussed each proposal is trying to solve. I can't see which problem an abuse-c attribute referencing a role or person object would solve that applying the -c flag by default to inetnum/inetnum6 queries would not. [1] of associating abuse contacts to IP addresses in a machine-parseable format. -- ciao, | Marco | [4485 ribFnO50vJ3TY]
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: abuse-c: proposal
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: abuse-c: proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]