This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/db-wg@ripe.net/
[db-wg] abuse-c
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hank Nussbacher
hank at att.net.il
Fri Jan 9 15:04:52 CET 2004
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Rev Adrian Kennard wrote: > |>A lot of inetnum records I have seen have a remarks field identifying > |>the abuse ocntact, but this is in an inconsistent format making it > |>difficult to automate in any way. It also seems that a lot of network > |>administrators (admin-c) do not feel they should administer their > |>network to remove viruses, etc, and get quite annoyed when contacted > |>regarding abuse. > |> > |>What would be the procedure for proposing such a new field? > | > | > | It's already there :). > | > | Please check > | http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/irt-object.html > | > | and the TF-CSIRT effort to make it easier to use this: > | http://www.dfn-cert.de/team/matho/irt-object/ > | > | It's not perfect but it's there. > > I did look at the IRT object, but it looked far far more complex than > the simple requirement of "who do I email abuse to for an IP address", > which is what the "remarks" fields ina lot of inetnum objects are > providing. Ditto. I haven't bothered with an irt object either. That is also why there are only 40 irt objects in the RIPE DB. -Hank > > Indeed, I am somewhat concerned by the "Creation procedure" which looks > overly complex and a manual process.
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]