[anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

On 07-Mar-2016, at 3:00 PM, Gilles Massen <gilles.massen at restena.lu> wrote:
> 
> On 07/03/16 10:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> 
>> As a reporter of quite a lot of phish - I think having something that
>> is standardized and machine parseable helps.
>> 
>> Those that really don’t want to handle reports for a range might want
>> to populate something standard there too (and yes, this is a semi
>> ironic policy proposal) - devnull at example.com or whatever.
> 
> "no abuse-c found" looks pretty machine parsable to me.

I might even agree with you, if abuse-c was actually standardized and if abuse contacts weren’t spread across a variety of other fields - such as the remarks.

remarks:        +---------------------------------------+
remarks:        | In case of complaints use the contact |
remarks:        | information in the role object below. |
remarks:        +---------------------------------------+