[anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:19:31AM +0100, Frank Gadegast wrote:

Hi,

> A "migration plan" cannot be located in a proposal, because it heavily
> depends on the work of the RIPE NCC and a plan include dates (to my
> understanding) wich shouldnt end up in a proposal.

Lets say order the relevant technical processes should be included in this proposal (Some might call this a plan).

> >>Another point: if the general idea of the policy is acceptable, wouldn't
> >>it be nice to have 2 abuse mailboxes: one for humans, one for bots?
> >
> >+1;
> 
> Having two contacts might complicates things, it might be complicated
> for the end user to decide wich one to contact.
> 
> Maybe it would be easier to make one contact wich has to be marked
> as "person", "role" or "robot".
> Both, end user or automatic reporting tools, could then decide themself,
> if the type of the contact fits their intention.
> It might also be nice to have a "preferred reporting method" field
> included, what could be "email, phone, url, ARF, X-ARF" or similar.

What if the people or robots reporting to such an address, don't care about robot vs. human mailboxes and/or relevant reporting formats (or are reporting bogus due to bugs)? I would suggest, that every team/member/robot behind such an address should figure that for themselves.

Cheers, Adrian