[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
denis
ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Mar 3 11:53:31 CET 2016
Hi Gert I published some ideas almost 2 years ago on how we could improve abuse-c https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/suggestions-for-improving-abuse-handling I am not saying these are a perfect solution either, but no one was interested in discussing ways forward... ...dare I also say this clumsiness is partly due to the data model 'design'....which no one wants to discuss either. cheers denis On 03/03/2016 11:38, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 10:30:27AM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> Randy Bush wrote: >>> so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an >>> email address where we can send mail to which there will be no response? >> >> you could just as easily make the same arguments about admin-c or tech-c. > > But that's not half as botched as abuse-c: > > (I do think that having well-defined abuse contacts are useful, but the > idea that the indirection has to go through an organization: object is > a computer scientists' idea on how the world has to work, and that > annoys me enough to hate the whole abuse-c: stuff) > > Hierarchical inheritance is great. Put abuse-c: in your top-level inetnum, > and all is good. Put it into your org if you *want*. But if you have one > particular inetnum that wants a different abuse-c:, having to add a new > object to be able to do so is just... *argh* > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster >
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]