[db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Peter Koch
pk at DENIC.DE
Wed Feb 16 18:59:14 CET 2005
Ulrich Kiermayr <ulrich.kiermayr at univie.ac.at> wrote: > > abuse-mailbox: > > > > Specifies the e-mail address to which abuse complaints should be > > sent. [...] > In my opinion this aproach is wrong. an inetnum or route does not have > an email or even read emails. There is *someone* there handling abuse, seconded. > My view. It is valid to add the abuse mailbox to objects that describe > Prrsons or Groups of them (person:, role:, organisation:), but to > implement a reference to them for objects that describe ressources > (inetnum, inet6num, route, ....). 'abuse-c:' for example. There seems to be an important difference between an "abuse-mailbox:" in an inetnum, route, ... object and in a person, role, ... object. For the first group it denominates the contect when the object "hosts" the source of the complaint, while for the second group it specifies a purpose specific alternative address. I'm neither sure mixing these is a good idea nor do I understand whether the alternative address will take off. Is it meant to make me able to re-route any abuse complaints targeted at myself to, say, abuse at example.com? What happens if the same person is listed as contact for different organisations, so this re-routing would have to be context sensitive? -Peter
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]