[anti-abuse-wg] Proposal: Publish effective users' abuse-c
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Proposal: Publish effective users' abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Proposal: Publish effective users' abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alessandro Vesely
vesely at tana.it
Sat Jan 22 12:04:51 CET 2022
Hi, On Fri 21/Jan/2022 19:40:40 +0100 denis walker wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 13:03, Alessandro Vesely <vesely at tana.it> wrote: >> >> The idea is to add extra addresses to assignment objects, irrespective of the >> resource holder, based on the wish of its customer who is actually connected to >> the resource. Would that be at all possible? > > When you say " irrespective of the resource holder, based on the wish > of its customer" do you mean without their consent or control? That is > not possible as they maintain the assignment object. I would also say > it is not desirable. That would allow an abuser to override the > resource holders abuse-c and ignore all abuse reports. Yes, I meant extra attributes linked to the assignment object. If it's not possible let's just forget it. >> And, if yes, would it be acceptable by the resource holder or are there >> contractual impediments? Finally, if feasibility is ok, would operators >> take advantage of it or is it only me? > > If you are talking about adding extra abuse addresses to assignment > objects by agreement with the resource holder, as I explained, that is > possible now by simply adding an abuse-c to the assignment . Except that I don't have write access to the assignment object. Best Ale --
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Proposal: Publish effective users' abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Proposal: Publish effective users' abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]