[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 ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Wed Nov 10 12:29:56 CET 2010
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 01:05:51PM +0200, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote: > 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"? And how anybody could stop publishing this kind of info in remark fields? Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- 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 ]