[db-wg] abuse-c

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:55:06AM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:

> On of the problems that was identified when the irt object type was 
> defined is that there are a lot of meanings of "incident" that the "irt" 
> could be responding to.  The same applies to an "abuse-c:" attribute. 
> Does abuse mean spam?  DoS?  Illegally trading movies?  E-mailed viruses? 
>  Pornography?  Gambling?  Hijacking address space?
> 
> Do you have different desks for these different types of abuses?  If so, 
> does it make sense to have different contacts for them?  (History shows 
> this doesn't matter too much - as users tend to send to every e-mail they 
> can find.  But in the future, it would make modifying output of tools to 
> only display relevant information easier.)

That's why I proposed a simple attribute only containing 1 single
email address where people can send their complaints. It will mostly
end-up being abuse at isp for every single inetnum.

It's harder to maintain, but easier to delegate abuse handling for a
specific inetnum to a certain part of the company or even to the enduser.

If you define a abuse-c: as a person/role object, you still have the
problem that people need to resolve it and then possibly get multiple
addresses. So the problem doesn't get solved and we can just stick with
the irt-object.

I think for this we can better stick to the most simple solution
available.

Grtx,

MarcoH