[db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse

On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 12:03:37PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:
> 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?

Please do include them, I understand the concern, but it took I think over
2 years to get to this compromise, please implement it as we Really Need It
Now.

I also think it's a good compromise, for people who want to do it simple,
there is abuse-mailbox, for people wanting to do it properly, there is
the IRT object.

Regards,

Andre Koopal
MCI
> 
> -- 
> Shane Kerr
> RIPE NCC
>