[db-wg] abuse-c

Hi Marco,


Okay, I can understand the need for a seperate abuse address for some
inetnum objects, I agree it would work best if there was an optional
abuse-address on the inetnum object which had first priority, if its missing
an abuse-address as I proposed will be used.

This means that everybody must add an abuse address to their maintainer
object, but in case a different address is prefered for some inetnum
objects, that address is simply added to those inetnum objects.

It would however be really nice if it could somehow be transparent for the
whois database user, meaning a specific field of the output always contains
the abuse address whether its from the maintainer or inetnum.

I have a lot of inetnum objects which I need the same abuse address for so I
would REALLY appriciate not having to change each and everyone of them!.. :)



Med venlig hilsen/Best regards

Christian Rasmussen
Hosting manager, jay.net a/s

Smedeland 32, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark

Email: noc at jay.net
Personal email: chr at corp.jay.net
Tlf./Phone: +45 3336 6300, Fax: +45 3336 6301

Produkter / Products:
http://hosting.jay.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: db-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:db-wg-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of
> MarcoH
> Sent: 12. januar 2004 14:51
> To: db-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] abuse-c
>
>
> 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
>
>