[db-wg] Re: abuse-c

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:59:15PM +0200, Thor Kottelin wrote:
> So, we already have the irt object and the trouble attribute. Additionally,
> abuse is often reported based on admin-c, tech-c, changed, remarks and
> $DEITY knows what. Please let's not add to the confusion by creating even
> more attribute or object types.
> 
> As for the irt object requiring a maintainer, that requirement exists for
> security, the need for which should be obvious in the context of abuse
> reports as well.
> 
> The obvious hardliner approach would be to require future inetnum updates to
> carry valid mnt-irt attributes.

So we make the presence of an irt-object and for a mnt-irt attribute mandatory
and in the meantime start working on a "how to write a tool to get abuse
addresses" manual...

Like Daniel already suggested, creating or changing an atrribute to
mandatory means a lot of work from the NCC and all registries. Adding an
optional attribute to the inetnum, inet6num and mntner objects, maybe
making it mandatory for any new and/or updated mntner object, is probably
much easier to implement and we don't need to resort to "mnt-irt: NO-IRT"
on all objects who are not maintained and where the contact hasn't
responded as this is the only way we will get the mandatory field on all
objects.

This is not because I don't like the irtobject, the thing I hate is that
the amount of abuse complaints I get to my personal email-address is
slowly approaching the volume of spam I get at the same mailbox. And
everytime I get such a report I need to forward it to our abusedesk
which migth already got it directly and/or from a bunch of collegaeus who
also recieved a personal copy of the complaint.

Not forwarding results in not taking complaints seriously, forwarding them
means extra load to our absue dept, longer response times and thus more
people trying other ways to send abuse complaints.

I'm waiting for the first user to pick a phonenumber from my person object
and calling me up in the middle of the night to complain about some spam
with a spoofed header which didn't even passed our infrastructure.

So if somebody can come up with a decent way to get all the registries to
create an irt-object and an easy way to tell the public to use it when
looking for an abuse contact, I'm happy to support that proposal.

In the meantime, I think that Daniel had a nicely formulated proposal.

Grtx,

MarcoH