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 ]
Christoph Mohr
mohr at belwue.de
Mon Jan 12 15:48:40 CET 2004
Dear all! On Mon 2004-01-12 (14:17), Christian Rasmussen wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > > Im not sure if you have seen my previous mail, but I suggested to add a > field called "abuse-address" in the maintainer object and make a rule saying > Ripe NCC MUST check that the email address is correct by sending a mail to > it and not create the maintainer object until the mail has been responded. > MNT-BY is mandatory on inetnum objects so once all maintainer objects have > this field added all inetnum objects will be refering to a correct abuse > address without having each LIR to go through all inetnums. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, the only purpose of the maintainer in RIPE whois database is to maintain the data in the database. That means on the other hand that the maintainer doesn't deal with any technical or abuse issues. Be beware of the fact that other databases don't have a maintainer at all! As a result, I can't see any reason to put in an abuse mail address in the Maintainer object. If I had an abuse issue, I would tell it to the admin-c/tech-c or if it existed to the person/role mentioned in an inet[6]num object. In many cases I think this will work. So, if anyone doesn't want abuse issues having sent to admin-c or tech-c of the inet[6]num , he would automatically insert an abuse-c person/role (if possible). > The problem with person object is that the email field is optional, so I > don't see it as an option to refer to this object in abuse matters. It should be forbidden to put in a person/role without email address as a tech-c or abuse-c. Or is there anybody out there who would to talk to a technical person by snail mail :-) Best regards, Christoph Mohr > > > 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 Rev > > Adrian Kennard > > Sent: 12. januar 2004 13:37 > > To: db-wg at ripe.net > > Subject: [db-wg] abuse-c > > > > > > Following up my own mail... > > > > > Also, the "trouble" field is a good thought - maybe we should add > > > "trouble" to inetnum, as there is already a field name defined for the > > > purpose essentially. Just an idea. > > > > "trouble" is not really the answer as it is freeform. It needs to be a > > syntax checked email address. abuse-c to a person/role object seems > > sensible. > > > > -- > > Rev Adrian Kennard > > Andrews & Arnold Ltd / AAISP www.aaisp.net.uk > > > > > > > -- -- Christoph Mohr, Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science ------------ University of Education Ludwigsburg Phone: +49 7141 140-380 Reuteallee 46, D-71634 Ludwigsburg Fax: +49 7141 140-435 -- mailto: mohr at belwue.de ----------------------- http://www.belwue.de/ -----
- 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 ]