[db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco d'Itri
md at Linux.IT
Wed Feb 16 19:15:09 CET 2005
On Feb 16, Ulrich Kiermayr <ulrich.kiermayr at univie.ac.at> wrote: > In my opinion this aproach is wrong. an inetnum or route does not have > an email or even read emails. There is *someone* there handling abuse, > who has an email (maybe designated for abuse) that is reading malis and > hopefully doing something. What do I miss here. > > My view. It is valid to add the abuse mailbox to objects that describe > Prrsons or Groups of them (person:, role:, organisation:), but to > implement a reference to them for objects that describe ressources > (inetnum, inet6num, route, ....). 'abuse-c:' for example. Agreed. Note that this "reference" is irt-mnt. It's annoying that requests to have IRT records returned by default have been ignored. I do not remember anybody arguing against this, and without this IRT records are just dead. -- ciao, Marco -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20050216/cfe25c28/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]