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

LS,

On 13 Apr 2004, at 17:23, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:

>   This simple counting approach is potentially VERY misleading, as it 
> is
>   not the sheer _number_ of individual entries which should be counted,
>   but the _size_ of the address blocks covered in this hierarchy.

I'ld like to see or hear the argument behind this assertion.

I can see that it is useful to be aware of what proportion of the 
address
space is within the scope of some abuse contact or other.  This gives us
a sense of the scale of the problem, and the extent to which it is 
already
solved.

IMHO, we should count whatever will give us a measure of the amount of
effort (work, energy) we need to exert to deal with the problem at hand.

If we propose to intervene at the level of individual addresses, 
counting
them will be useful.  I suggest that a more realistic estimate of the 
effort
involved will be based on intervention at a more aggregated level, and 
that
we should count whatever the operations are which we need to make at 
that
aggregated level.  That's what I've tried to present, with a proposed
method for estimating the effort involved.  I haven't seen any serious
counter-argument.

By the way, I see an entry for "inetnum: 0.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255". One
"straw man" starting point, which gives a very attractive (but of course
totally misleading) lower bound on the effort involved, is to choose to
address the problem at this level of aggregation.  By implementing the
"abuse-mailbox" distinguished attribute, and updating just one database
object, the problem would be solved! N'est-ce pas? 8-)

Valete!

Niall