[db-wg] abuse-c

Hi Sebastian,



> > 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.
>
> I don't think that this is useful, because I'd maybe like to set
> different abuse contacts for different inet[6]num objects, but want to
> be able to protect all those objects with one and the same maintainer

Okay, this was discussed yesterday and we talked about a combination of what
Daniel Karrenberg suggested and the above, meaning you just add an optional
abuse attribute to the inetnum objects, if its not added the abuse address
will "default" to the abuse address of the maintainer object. Wouldn't this
work for you?


> object.  Besides, I don't think that we really need to validate the
> existence of the email address supplied.

hm.. honestly I must agree, I very much doubt any LIR will try to forge an
abuse address.. But I understand that is the reason for encryption features
of the current irt object, so if somekind of check mechanism is needed for
certain LIRs to use this concept I suggest the email address is checked as
described above.

>
> I'd also like to see a mandatory/multiple abuse-c field containing a
> rfc-valid email address.

Im not sure why it should be multiple? But I think most of us on this list
can agree with you that a valid abuse email address associated with each
inetnum in the database would be very welcome.





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