[anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kostas Zorbadelos
kzorba at otenet.gr
Wed Nov 10 12:05:51 CET 2010
On Wednesday 10 November 2010 12:57:31 Marco Hogewoning wrote: > On 10 nov 2010, at 11:30, Sander Steffann wrote: > >> That being said, I still think a single canonical place to store abuse > >> handling information is A Very Good Thing. > > > > +1 > > Be careful of what you wish for, maybe somebody can produce the same stats > as I did back in 2004: > > - number of inet(6)num covered by IRT > - number of inet(6)num covered by abuse-mailbox attributes > - Number of inet(6)num containing a remarks field with the words > 'complaint' or 'abuse' in it > > Creating a 'single point' makes it implicit that others should disappear > and you might throw away a load of data and you don't know what you will > get back for it. > I am missing your point here. These might be a lot of garbage data. What is wrong about have ONE consistent way to publish abuse contacts? Don't you find this "A Good Thing"? Kostas > Groet, > > MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]