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 ]
MarcoH
marcoh at marcoh.net
Mon Jan 12 14:50:48 CET 2004
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:56:53PM +0100, Christian Rasmussen wrote: > Why not simply add "abuse-address" as a MANDATORY attribute in the > maintainer object, then Ripe NCC should have to check when creating a > maintainer object that the address is valid (eg. send a mail to the address, > Ripe NCC doesn't create the maintainer until their mail has been replied). > > It would be relatively simple for all LIRs to add such an attribute to their > maintainer object and then for Ripe NCC to check up on those objects missing > the attribute. The whois system would of course need to be modified to show > the abuse-address attribute when doing a whois, but I don't believe that > would be a big problem? I have some inetnum objects where I would like to get a seperate entry for the abuse address, thus allowing other people (the customer) to handle the 'frontline" abuse things or at least get copied on them. I think Daniel's proposal handles this nicely, use the abuse-address on the inetnum or where it fails the one on the maintainer object. I certainly don't want to create an extra maintainer the moment I want to delegate abuse handling to another partie or direct it to a seperate mailbox. Grtx, MarcoH
- 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 ]