[anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)

Am 10.11.2010 12:29, schrieb Piotr Strzyzewski:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 01:05:51PM +0200, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:
>> On Wednesday 10 November 2010 12:57:31 Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>>> On 10 nov 2010, at 11:30, Sander Steffann wrote:
>>>>> That being said, I still think a single canonical place to store abuse
>>>>> handling information is A Very Good Thing.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>
>>> Be careful of what you wish for, maybe somebody can produce the same stats
>>> as I did back in 2004:
>>>
>>> - number of inet(6)num covered by IRT
>>> - number of inet(6)num covered by abuse-mailbox attributes
>>> - Number of inet(6)num containing a remarks field with the words
>>> 'complaint' or 'abuse' in it
>>>
>>> Creating a 'single point' makes it implicit that others should disappear
>>> and you might throw away a load of data and you don't know what you will
>>> get back for it.
>>
>> I am missing your point here. These might be a lot of garbage data. What is 
>> wrong about have ONE consistent way to publish abuse contacts? Don't you find 
>> this "A Good Thing"?
> 
> And how anybody could stop publishing this kind of info in remark
> fields?

Unfortunately you can't. But if everybody knows that the mandatory IRT
is the place to publish abuse contact information, nobody will look for
remark fields any further. And if you have to have an IRT, why publish a
remark field with the same information?

Thanks,

Tobias

abusix.org



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20101110/235f6568/attachment.sig>