[db-wg] abuse-c
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hank Nussbacher
hank at att.net.il
Sat Jan 10 17:26:32 CET 2004
At 06:27 PM 09-01-04 +0100, MarcoH wrote: >On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:32:39PM +0100, Jan Meijer wrote: > > > > It seems there is a pretty clear need for an extra field in inetnum and > > > inet6num records, specifically something like an abuse-c field > > > referencing a person record. > > > > It's already there :). > > > > Please check > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/irt-object.html > > > > and the TF-CSIRT effort to make it easier to use this: > > http://www.dfn-cert.de/team/matho/irt-object/ > > > > It's not perfect but it's there. > >That's exactly the point, IRT is there but far for perfect for the purpose >the original poster is refering to. > >The problem is that there are a lot of 'tools' out there who have a >mechansim to query ripe or another db for the inetnum and all person and role >objects asociated with it to find line which contains an '@' to be a valid >address to complain to. And I don't know of any automated tool that processes the irt object. >Refering to an abuse address in remarks is possible, but then even you >have to be carefull to not enclose the address in <> as some webbased >tools strip them out. > >Not to judge on all, but I get the feeling that there are a lot of people >who don't know what the fields mean, let alone they will know on how to >use the irt object. > >So we can start advertising the irt mechanism to both the LIR's and the >people who migth come searching for an address to send a complaint to. I >don't think it is very likely to hit a large public in a reasonable time. > >Introducing an extra (mandatory) field in inetnum objects to hold the >abuse address for that specific netblock and nothing more makes it much >more easier for all those people who write automated process to get the >information requested and not have to fallback to listing addresses in >changed: fields as a possible way to complain. > >Introducing it and making some noise about it on certain mailinglists and >fora, will probably be picked much faster. > >As such can this subject be put an the wg-agenda for ripe-47 ? > >To formalize it a little bit I wan't to put forward the proposal to add an >'abuse' field to inetnum and inet6num objects. > >This field will be limited to one line containing a syntactically correct >email address which can be used to send abuse complaints on ip-addresses >in that block. > >Reasons to do so are to give people an easy way to automate finding a >place to complain and giving LIR's an easy and generic way to publish the >abuse address, without having to resort to the unknown and for the average >database user complex method of the irt-object. > >As a side effect this might result in more spammers hitting the abuse box >directly as they harvest the database :) > >I'm not stating that this is the best way, but a have a feeling this can >improve things a lot. I too would support a simple abuse-c object. -Hank >Grtx, > >Marco Hogewoning
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]