[anti-abuse-wg] Some (old) numbers about the quality of contact information, was 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] abuse email address validation
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Shane Kerr
shane at time-travellers.org
Tue Apr 17 12:03:04 CEST 2012
All, On Tuesday, 2012-04-17 11:00:23 +0200, Denis Walker <denis at ripe.net> wrote: > > On 17/04/12:17 10:48 AM, Frank Gadegast wrote: > > > > Do you think that the LIRs would complain, if the NCC asks > > the maintainer with an automatic email to updated his or her > > objects ? Cannot imagine it, because they DID supply an email > > address, its simply wrong (old, forgotten or typing mistake or > > deliberatly wrong). > > > > > Here in lays another problem....you are assuming now that all > maintainers email addresses are valid. We will present some stats on > these in the DB WG presentation later this week. Here we are talking > much more than 1.5% problems. For historical context, here's a presentation I did in a while ago: http://meetings.ripe.net/ripe-45/presentations/ripe45-db-contact-data.ppt I have no idea if quality of contact data has gotten better or worse in the last 9 years. :) -- Shane -- Shane
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] abuse email address validation
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]