[db-wg] Proposal: Abuse-C as a Reference
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal: Abuse-C as a Reference
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal: Abuse-C as a Reference
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeroen Massar
jeroen at unfix.org
Thu May 6 16:23:41 CEST 2004
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 15:32, Ulrich Kiermayr wrote: <SNIP> > because Abuse is handled by someone else that technical Issues on the > Network. > > And I see gain here. where es you do not loose something if you like to > achieve the first. > > Hmm (I think there are a lot of Inetnums out there where admin-c == > tech-c at the moment; where is the gain in that?) Thus you want to stick a different person/role in *every* allocation? I sure hope you will never have to change that or that you use role accounts. Why do you not just use IRT? The prime reason, with which I agree, is that there is this 'mandatory' encryption field. Two things: - either RIPE can make it an optional field. - people don't mail using it because they ignore it ;) I don't see automated tools encrypting anyways... Another thing which might be considered is adding a 'abuse-mailbox' and 'spam-mailbox' to the IRT object, making everybody happy. Any other 'issues' with IRT? (which doesn't require one to update *all* their objects. Of course replacing it is 'easy' with a shell one liner, request all the refered objects from whois and update them. Checking your stats also shows that only 3x the amount of IPv4 inetnum's have a abuse@ line in comparison to the amount of objects with irt's. I think that reason awareness for adding IRT's is something which is something which is much higher on the priority list then and not inventing yet another object... Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20040506/06144304/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal: Abuse-C as a Reference
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposal: Abuse-C as a Reference
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]