Re: "changed" field should be deleted

[Daniel Karrenberg <]

I agree that this needs attention.
The whole changed: functionality should be reviewed.

I agree that a short term measure could be to suppress changed
information unless explicitly requested. This would also allow
us to check the whois query logs for those requesting it ...;-).
Does anyone know if this would break any knows scripts or uses
of the database?

Daniel

  > kissg@localhost writes:
  > Dear folks,
  > 
  > Nowadays I can see a new style of anti-spam fight.
  > 
  > If the victim gets some junk mail,
  > (s)he retrieves all database objects (including *rt) relative to
  > ALL hosts, domains, and IP addresses that can be found in the mail header,
  > and s(he) send complaining mails to ALL the fifty e-mail addresses
  > found in the database objects (including the *ch field). :-(
  > 
  > So these uneducated lamers multiply the amount of spam and harras
  > a dozen of peoples who are not responsible for the original junk mail
  > and the spam relays.
  > The lamers cannot diffrentiate the "responsible persons" and those
  > who maintain the database records itselves.
  > 
  > 
  > My first radical suggestion is:
  >   Let's delete the *ch field from the database objects.
  > 
  > However I know that there should be some info about the
  > history of records.
  > 
  > a few raw ideas:
  > - modified database software that hides the *ch field. *ch's could
  >   be retrieved with some extra efforts only
  > - some coded ID instead of e-mail address. Ordinary peoples couldn't
  >   decode it but authorized ripe-ops could. (E.g. via WWW or e-mail)
  >   This info shouldn't be public.
  > 
  > What is your opinion?
  > 
  > (Personally I've changed my jobs years ago but my e-mail address
  > can be found in hundreds of *ch fields. So I hate the
  > anti-spam spam as well than the spam itself.)
  > 
  > 
  > Regards
  > 
  > Gabor
  >