[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 ]
Shane Kerr
shane at ripe.net
Thu Feb 17 12:03:37 CET 2005
Niall O'Reilly wrote: > > On 16 Feb 2005, at 17:39, Ulrich Kiermayr 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. > > > On 6 May 2004, at 11:39, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > >> Making the _same_ distinguished attribute available in both primary >> (inet*num, AS) and secondary (reference-targets: person, role, org, >> irt) objects >> gives the widest scope for maintainers to do what is _convenient for >> them_ whilst >> retaining overall consistency. This was what we thought the consensus was. I think the history was: - proposal to add "abuse-mailbox:" to INETNUM objects - concern with this, suggestion to put in contacts - concern that this was too hard, and confusing - suggestion to do both There seems to be a lot of concern with "abuse-mailbox:" in INETNUM and INET6NUM. Perhaps the easiest way forward is to exclude them at this time, and then add them later if problems persist? -- Shane Kerr RIPE NCC
- 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 ]