Re: [anti-spam-wg] Fwd: IRT abuse-mailbox things...

[Markus Stumpf maex-lists-ripe-antispam-wg@localhost]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:08:20PM +0100, Jørgen Hovland wrote:
> And why do you think so few people use RP records when it was created as 
> far back as in 1990?

Because nobody knows them ... just like so much other RRs (e.g. SSHFP).

> RP records don't scale, are unconcise and lack important features.

Which "features" do they lack?
Why don't they scale?
Maybe it would help if you read the RFC and see what can be done with
RP RRs.

> Just because I am authorative for some ip-address doesn't mean I am the 
> responsible person.

Define "authoritative".
And define the difference to "responsible person".

> RP record abuse.domain.com can never be translated into an email address.

Sure it can. Just like the contact in the SOA can. (btw. yours
cannot, as someone has added an invalid character "@" to the SOA
RNAME of your zone:

    hovland.cx.    IN      SOA     dns1.ssc.net.  hostmaster@localhost. 2007020722 21600 7200 3600000 386400

RFC1193 defines an easy, clear and agreed on way to do so:
   The first field, <mbox-dname>, is a domain name that specifies the
   mailbox for the responsible person.  Its format in master files uses
   the DNS convention for mailbox encoding, identical to that used for
   the RNAME mailbox field in the SOA RR.  The root domain name (just
   ".") may be specified for <mbox-dname> to indicate that no mailbox is
   available.

> There is no such thing as a responsible person.

Blah.
  RFC1183:
   The responsible person for zone database
   purposes is named in the SOA RR for that zone.  This section
   describes an extension which allows different responsible persons to
   be specified for different names in a zone.
Isn't it funny how a whole section of a RFC handles something that
does not exist?

> And so on..
> It simply don't work.

Maybe you should read some RFCs and see *how* things work before
claiming that they don't work (again, look at the SOA for hovland.cx).

> I also dislike it because it is an attempt to create a 
> homogeneous way to retrieve important contact information.

Yeah, it is really bad to have a defined and standardized interface.
It is much better to find ones way through muddleheaded websites or call
international operators for a phone number and spend 30 minutes on a
expensive international line, while being connected to 20 persons,
none of which understands the problem and connects you to just
someone other with the same non-qualification.

	\Maex