[db-wg] Re: abuse-c
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
MarcoH
marcoh at marcoh.net
Tue Jan 13 12:02:36 CET 2004
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:29:45AM +0100, Christian Rasmussen wrote: > > So we make the presence of an irt-object and for a mnt-irt > > attribute mandatory > > and in the meantime start working on a "how to write a tool to get abuse > > addresses" manual... > > > > Like Daniel already suggested, creating or changing an atrribute to > > mandatory means a lot of work from the NCC and all registries. Adding an > > optional attribute to the inetnum, inet6num and mntner objects, maybe > > making it mandatory for any new and/or updated mntner object, is probably > > much easier to implement and we don't need to resort to "mnt-irt: NO-IRT" > > on all objects who are not maintained and where the contact hasn't > > responded as this is the only way we will get the mandatory field on all > > objects. > > I think its very important to both make the abuse attribute mandatory on > maintainer objects and initiate a project to add this attribute to all > existing maintainer objects so we end up with an abuse address associated > with ALL inetnum objects, if this isn't the goal, I don't really see the > reason for trying to improve the current situation. This can be put up as the proposal for abuse(-c) attribute. When we introduce something new it will probably be easier to make it mandatory oposed to changing existing attributes. If possible I would like it to be mandatory on all new or updated objects (modify syntax check on auto-dbm), so we don't end up with abuse: handles pointing to a default which would be the case when we decide to make it mandatory on all objects. > > This is not because I don't like the irtobject, the thing I hate is that > > the amount of abuse complaints I get to my personal email-address is > > slowly approaching the volume of spam I get at the same mailbox. And > > everytime I get such a report I need to forward it to our abusedesk > > which migth already got it directly and/or from a bunch of collegaeus who > > also recieved a personal copy of the complaint. > > Exactly, Im getting enormous amounts of spam/abuse complaints on my personal > mail address, Im trying to move it to our abuse address, but its really hard > since the whois data is simply scanned for any valid mail address... As I've > said a couple of times I don't think this will change until a standard for > abuse addresses is implemented into all inetnum objects. > > The problem I see with the irt object is that a very simple thing (email > address associated with an IP address) is made way to complicated. I don't > see any need for an individual object just for abuse/irt, instead of > referencing this object, just put in the abuse address!! > > I do understand the irt concept has some interesting advanced features, but > could somebody please explain how these benefit smaller LIRs who do not have > special abuse teams/outsourced abuse? The priority has to be to get a system > working which can tell the abuse address of a given IP address, then > advanced (optional) features can be added later. I'm not proposing to leave the irt scheme, as you said it's just to big/complicated for the information most people need. So everybody resorts to remarks to list the abuse address and this is not usable for automation as it is freeform. > > So if somebody can come up with a decent way to get all the registries to > > create an irt-object and an easy way to tell the public to use it when > > looking for an abuse contact, I'm happy to support that proposal. > > > > In the meantime, I think that Daniel had a nicely formulated proposal. > > Yes, I think the proposal which Daniel formulated combined with the above > could solve the problem. I must admit however that it might be kind of a > quick solution, and I understand the arguments about abuse-addresses doesn't > belong in a maintainer object, but I still don't see this as a very big > problem compared to the current situation. > > An interesting point was raised about the reasons for admin-c and tech-c, in > case these attributes are changed, then perhaps the abuse concept had to be > reconsidered as well. Yep, but this is more of a legal issue as I understand it as some parties would like to know who is 'responsible' for an ip-address. I would say, the owner of the registry to which it is allocated. It would be nice to list this person as an admin-c, but I don't think our CEO would be happy if I put his details in the ripe-db or request our share holders to register themselves as they have the final 'ownership'. So please keep the discussion focussed on "is there a need to implement an extra way of listing abuse contacts directly on the inetnum". MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Re: abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]