[anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Crime
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gilles Massen
gilles.massen at restena.lu
Fri Jul 8 11:44:41 CEST 2016
Hi Piotr, >> Specifically: forcing people to add an abuse-c as a matter of ticking a >> checkbox leads to not-working or ignored abuse email boxes. And I rather >> have no abuse-c than an ignored one - it is a clear signal and leads to >> much better use of a reporters time. > > This argument could be easily extended by making it more general: > forcing people to add any contact including e-mail or phone number could > lead to kind of garbage. Yet, noone oppose to have ORGANISATION, ROLE > and PERSON objects in the database. I completely agree, it could be extended. In fact you have a vast range of data, from absolutely essential to completely wasteful. What you don't have is consensus on where to put the abuse-c on that range. The usefulness of no data also tends to vary with the intended use and actual use of the data consumer. best, Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 2, avenue de l'Université LU-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette tel: +352.4244091 fax: +352.422473
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Crime
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]