[db-wg] Re: abuse-c

Hi Marco,



> 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.

I think its very important to both make the abuse attribute mandatory on
maintainer objects and initiate a project to add this attribute to all
existing maintainer objects so we end up with an abuse address associated
with ALL inetnum objects, if this isn't the goal, I don't really see the
reason for trying to improve the current situation.

>
> 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.

Exactly, Im getting enormous amounts of spam/abuse complaints on my personal
mail address, Im trying to move it to our abuse address, but its really hard
since the whois data is simply scanned for any valid mail address... As I've
said a couple of times I don't think this will change until a standard for
abuse addresses is implemented into all inetnum objects.

The problem I see with the irt object is that a very simple thing (email
address associated with an IP address) is made way to complicated. I don't
see any need for an individual object just for abuse/irt, instead of
referencing this object, just put in the abuse address!!

I do understand the irt concept has some interesting advanced features, but
could somebody please explain how these benefit smaller LIRs who do not have
special abuse teams/outsourced abuse? The priority has to be to get a system
working which can tell the abuse address of a given IP address, then
advanced (optional) features can be added later.

>
> 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.

Yes, I think the proposal which Daniel formulated combined with the above
could solve the problem. I must admit however that it might be kind of a
quick solution, and I understand the arguments about abuse-addresses doesn't
belong in a maintainer object, but I still don't see this as a very big
problem compared to the current situation.

An interesting point was raised about the reasons for admin-c and tech-c, in
case these attributes are changed, then perhaps the abuse concept had to be
reconsidered as well.



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