Re: [db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse

On Feb 16, Ulrich Kiermayr <ulrich.kiermayr@localhost wrote:

> 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, 
> who has an email (maybe designated for abuse) that is reading malis and 
> hopefully doing something. What do I miss here.
> 
> 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.
Agreed. Note that this "reference" is irt-mnt. It's annoying that
requests to have IRT records returned by default have been ignored. I do
not remember anybody arguing against this, and without this IRT records
are just dead.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature