Re: [db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse

[Peter Koch <]

Ulrich Kiermayr <ulrich.kiermayr@localhost 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@localhost What happens if the same person is listed as
contact for different organisations, so this re-routing would have to
be context sensitive?

-Peter