[db-wg] Action item 47.2: Proposal for Adding Abuse Contact

On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 13:58, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2004, at 10:50, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> 
> > Clueless users do not use port 43 whois
> 
> Not directly.  They buy some shrink-wrapped software to run on their 
> WinXX box, which has a clue-free default configuration which they never 
> review.

Which makes every proposal useless as in that case you are assuming
the current toolwrites don't know about IRT objects. Then for sure they
are not going to accept implementing the suddenly new abuse-mailbox
and a seperate spam-mailbox etc on every object too.

Notez bien that adding spam/abuse/attack/questions-mailboxes can
also be added to the irt object. Or if you really want to make it
general, why not start thinking of a contact object, but wait, we
have that already it is called person/role...

If you don't expect toolwriters to implement irt objects, because
many people, or at least the couple on this list, don't want to
add that simple object to their inet[6]num's then you should not
expect everybody to start adding abuse+spam-mailbox and all the
others to _all_ the objects they own.

Unfortunatly the people making up/defining the documents can't
force ever tool writer in this world to do their job correctly
and implementing it as expected, especially with such a loose
"protocol" as whois that is different in the 4 current regions
of this world. ARIN registry is imho a mess compared to the
RIPE/APNIC registries and I think one can bet that ARIN region
folks think the same about the RIPE/APNIC registries.
But you might educate those toolwriters to do so, either way,
if that would be to let them check irt objects or let them
check abuse-mailboxes that is a difficult and long process.

Taking into account that most RIPE members are ISP's and that
they don't want to have a big burden updating these objects I
still think that the irt object is the way to go, though as
seen from the comments, for instance Gert's about the mandatory
encryption field, there could be done some work there. Also
adding a 'spam/abuse-email' field to the irt might be handy.
But how many toolwriters will suddenly move to this new standard,
that will probably only be active in the RIPE registry while
most toolwriters are from the ARIN or APNIC regions...

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20040408/7c4d1aa8/attachment.sig>