[anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)

Hi Piotr,

>> Specifically: forcing people to add an abuse-c as a matter of ticking a
>> checkbox leads to not-working or ignored abuse email boxes. And I rather
>> have no abuse-c than an ignored one - it is a clear signal and leads to
>> much better use of a reporters time.
> 
> This argument could be easily extended by making it more general:
> forcing people to add any contact including e-mail or phone number could
> lead to kind of garbage. Yet, noone oppose to have ORGANISATION, ROLE
> and PERSON objects in the database.

I completely agree, it could be extended. In fact you have a vast range
of data, from absolutely essential to completely wasteful. What you
don't have is consensus on where to put the abuse-c on that range. The
usefulness of no data also tends to vary with the intended use and
actual use of the data consumer.

best,
Gilles

-- 
Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU
2, avenue de l'Université
LU-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette
tel: +352.4244091
fax: +352.422473