[db-wg] abuse-c

On Jan 12, MarcoH <marcoh at marcoh.net> wrote:

 >>  >If you define a abuse-c: as a person/role object, you still have the
 >>  >problem that people need to resolve it and then possibly get multiple
 >>  >addresses. So the problem doesn't get solved and we can just stick with
 >>  >the irt-object.
 >> Not if the relevant IRT object is automatically returned for every
 >> inetnum query. This is what ARIN does, BTW.
 >Ok, but in that case we need to launch a campaign to get people aware of
 >the irt object and how they should use it.
The same would apply to abuse-c as well.
I think IRT has the advantage that it already exists. If the server
could be changed to return by default the relevant IRT object for
inetnum queries I think it would be at least as useful as the
half-proposed abuse-c attribute.

 >Introducing the abuse: attribute as a single syntactically valid[1] email
 >address on inetnum objects or the first level of objects it refers to
 >makes it simple in the way that:
 >
 >whois ip-address | grep abuse:
IRT would be about as easy to use if returned by default. Some ASCII
banner would help pointing lusers at the right address where to send
complaints.
Do not forget that abuse-c would have to refer to a role or person
address (just using a mailbox as the attribute content would be really
too much ugly IMO, and not consistent with the general style of the DB),
so a little indirection would still be present.

 >Will always result in a valid email address to send the complaint, without
 >the need to walk to a tree of objects referring to each other and search
 >for remarks fields pointing to the abuse desk or just collecting
 >everything which includes an '@' and not even using uniq on them.
You will always find a better idiot... But procmail can help you.

-- 
ciao, |
Marco | [4069 coxDCUA1EuKYs]