[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
Mon Mar 7 20:35:43 CET 2016
Hi Suresh On 07/03/2016 11:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:08 PM, denis <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> The "abuse-c:" IS standardised. It is well defined and documented >> as THE method of defining abuse contact details in the RIPE >> Database according to the policy. Historically, as I mentioned in >> other emails, there was "abuse-mailbox:" defined in 5 object types > > Sure - but as you point out nobody much seems to be implementing it > so far - or at least, very few organizations. It has been implemented for the whole of the address space allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC. We spent 6 months 'encouraging' members to deploy it, then another year 'encouraging' PI holders to deploy it. Then a recent thread on this mailing list by Tim explained how the NCC was going to fill in a few gaps that were created before the new LIR process incorporated adding abuse-c as part of the process. So it is fully deployed and it is required for new LIRs. > > So yes, I’d welcome abuse-c being implemented more widely. I’m tired > of hunting up contact information from comment fields, in > particular. The legacy resources are the only resources in the RIPE Database that currently do not all have an abuse-c. If you use the tools provided by the NCC you should not need to do any manual lookups or read comments. cheers denis > > —srs >
- 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 ]