[anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field

Hi,

> When you can't back up an email address requirement with any valid legal
> requirement it will just degrade the data accuracy in the ripe database.
> Should, perhaps, but it's not going to happen by making it mandatory.

That is true. That's why we have the data accuracy part already on our 
agenda as one of the first next steps after this proposal. And by making 
it mandatory it is not truly a "legal" requirement, but it is a 
requirement by RIPE NCC and the community, which will give us some space.

> The abuse-c proposal itself is good since the database structure would
> improve.

Thanks for your feedback.

> I think you are misinformed about ARIN. They only require that the email
> you put in ARINs whois database must be able to accept email from ARIN.
> If you send an email to for example Googles email contact address you
> receive an auto reply with "Thank you for your email. However, it will
> not be read. Good bye.".

That is true, but we have very often reported not working email 
addresses to ARIN and ARIN tried to contact the maintainer and solve the 
problem, as long as they can not resolve the problem with the maintainer 
they flag the complete whois entry as not accurate. It would be 
interesting what would happen if you report the google address with this 
comment. If you are going to test it, let me know what the outcome is.

Thanks,

Tobias