Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Spam-RBL, anyone?
- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:05:00 -0500 (EST)
>> Um. I must be msising something. What, pray tell, do you think the
>> administrative conjtact address _is_ for, if not administrative
>> issues? Or do you not consider disciplining spammous users to be an
>> adminsitrative matter?
> We find it effective to use a dedicated role mailbox for each of (a
> small number of) categories of administrative issues. We take care
> to advertise this in the whois records for our networks.
...in a non-machine-parseable format.
Anything that depends on a human is reading the entry for correct
functioning is arguably broken; the reason for having a strict defined
format is so that the thing is machine parseable.
If you put up an abuse contact (I currently see only admin- and tech-),
and people _then_ send spam complaints to the admin contact, I might
agree with you. Until then, I have trouble faulting them for using the
database as it's designed.
> It may be illegal (at least in the EU), because it constitutes use of
> the data to which the data subject has not given consent; a fortiori
> because the intended use of the data has been advertised precisely in
> the record which was abused.
Only for rather broad (and unuseful) definitions of "record" (the
advertisement to which you appear to be referring is in a remarks:
field, not one of the mechanically usable fields), and even then only
if you presume that whatever/whomever is reading the record understands
fully general English (which software can't yet).
If you think there should be a way of tagging some addresses with "this
address is for abuse issues", well, I agree with you; that's what
putting up an abuse contact would be about. (If RIPE doesn't support
abuse contacts - I don't know - then perhaps you as a RIPE constituent
should work on having that changed, because it's causing you trouble.)
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B