[db-wg] More-specific abuse-c

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 11:40:25PM +0100, Tobias Knecht wrote:
> On another note I find it slightly strange, that in almost every threat
> about abuse-c the topic of data accuracy is brought up, but policy
> proposals like the abuse-c for legacy space has been withdrawn due lack of
> consensus.

This is not a contradiction.  

Forcing legacy holders to add "something" to the database is not magically
going to create "good quality data" for that something.

As is the mandatory abuse-c today - it created "something" (so we can now
tout how wonderfully complete our database is), but given that it was 
forced upon non-caring people, the *quality* of the recorded abuse-c: 
values is not necessarily better than it would have been for "if you care,
please register an abuse-c:".

For our data, the data quality is less good than before, as I find it far
too annoying to register abuse-c: for customer networks where the abuse
mails *could* be going directly (our parent abuse-c: points to our 
abuse handling team, so mails are going to be handled, but might take 
longer to reach the customer).

For many PI holders I have seen auto-generated abuse-c: ("forced!"), which
bascically duplicates the normal contact info.  Yay.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20161110/57c09b7e/attachment.sig>