[anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
denis
ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Mar 7 11:38:16 CET 2016
Hi Suresh On 07/03/2016 10:57, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 07-Mar-2016, at 3:00 PM, Gilles Massen <gilles.massen at restena.lu> > wrote: >> >> On 07/03/16 10:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> As a reporter of quite a lot of phish - I think having something >>> that is standardized and machine parseable helps. >>> >>> Those that really don’t want to handle reports for a range might >>> want to populate something standard there too (and yes, this is a >>> semi ironic policy proposal) - devnull at example.com or whatever. >> >> "no abuse-c found" looks pretty machine parsable to me. > > I might even agree with you, if abuse-c was actually standardized and > if abuse contacts weren’t spread across a variety of other fields - > such as the remarks. The "abuse-c:" IS standardised. It is well defined and documented as THE method of defining abuse contact details in the RIPE Database according to the policy. Historically, as I mentioned in other emails, there was "abuse-mailbox:" defined in 5 object types and users often put details in remarks. The plan was to do a cleanup after deploying "abuse-c:" and remove "abuse-mailbox:" from other object types and adjust the syntax. The RIPE NCC provides tools for finding abuse contacts based on "abuse-c:" and these can be used through the database API. Again if I can ever get people to accept that the data model needs 'some improvement', the API should provide a means to find information from the database rather than pull out blocks of raw data for human readable, manual interpretation. cheers denis > > remarks: +---------------------------------------+ remarks: > | In case of complaints use the contact | remarks: | > information in the role object below. | remarks: > +---------------------------------------+ > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]