[db-wg] Re: abuse-c: proposal

On Feb 07, MarcoH <marcoh at marcoh.net> wrote:

 >>  >operators, as we're paying the bills and supposedly ncc is
 >>  >our service org.  and perhaps we should reward clue.
 >> My requirements as an operator[1] are already fulfilled by irt objects,
 >> can you explain better what are yours?
 >My requirements as an operator[2] are clearly not met, I get loads of
 >abuse complaints to my notify and changed addresses every week, which I
 >have to forward to either the abuse dept or /dev/null.
I have not seen any good argument which would lead me to believe that
just adding yet another address would magically make clueless users use
it.

I looked at the inetnum object CISBRD-CUST-ADSL-113, one of these
created by you for your broadband customers: it contains in the remarks
attributes a well visible notice about where complaints should be sent,
yet you say that you still get them at your personal email address.
Do you really think that users would understand better if they read
"abuse-mailbox: user at example.com" instead of that sentence in english
which explains what the allocation is for and who should be notified of
abuse?
I do not pretend to be an expert in user interfaces, but I think that,
for a random user, natural language should be easier to understand than
something like "abuse-mailbox".

I think that there is a consensus that there is the need for a method to
look up the abuse desk address for an IP address, and I believe that irt
objects (which have the big advantage of existing) are fit to this.

Creating irt objects is not any harder than creating a new maintainer,
maybe the documentation should focus more on this and less on marketing
the TI concept (which apparently only NRENs care about).

-- 
ciao, |
Marco | [4502 co4fHliW8RaVw]