Re: [db-wg] abuse-c

[MarcoH <]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:45:09AM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> 
> Realistically speaking it is not very likely that stupid tools will
> change very soon.  Nonetheless I like the proposal of a simple
> 'abuse-mailbox' attribute containing an e-mail address and nothing else.
> This would open the possibility to ask tool-writers not to spam all the
> other e-mail addresses in the inet*num objects and any object remotely
> related to them.  In other words: we provide specific information where
> to send such messages, so it is a Bad Idea(TM) to send it anywhere
> else. 
> 
> I do not think we should make this attribute mandatory however, as
> introducing mandatory attributes is difficult in existing objects that
> have significant deployment.  Furthermore making an attribute mandatory
> tends to decrease its meaningfulness somewhat as people fill in
> 'anything' if they do not have meaningful data to provide.
> Preventing general spam from stupid tools and getting abuse e-mail
> concentrated in one mailbox should be enough motivation for deployment. 
> 
> I am also in favour of adding the 'abuse-mailbox' attribute to the
> maintainer object in order to provide a quick way for deployment that
> does not involve changing a lot of inet*num objects.  The referencing
> recommendation should be: "If the inet*num object for the address
> concerned has an 'abuse-mailbox', use this address *only* for sending 
> abuse complaints.  If such an attribute is not present, check the
> maintainer object for an 'abuse-mailbox' attribute and use this address
> *only* for sending abuse complaints."

I totally agree on this, this will give a clear and easy to
understand/implement mechanism for people writing whatever tool to find
abuse handling addresses.

Grtx,

MarcoH