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/[email protected]/
[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 ]
Christian Rasmussen
chr at jay.net
Tue Jan 13 12:51:28 CET 2004
> > There is no other way of ensuring that it's valid on a certain moment. > > There is still some form of 'trust' involved as to the point > that the LIR > > inserting the address takes abuse serious. And I hope the majority still > > does, so the system would work and people don't have to use other things > > like mailing all addresses they can find related to an address upto and > > including hostmaster at ripe.net. > > Sorry to be picky, but I still do not get it: then what is the > advantage of > > abuse-c: abuse at here.there.nl > > over > > remarks: abuse-c: abuse at here.there.nl > > as you stated trust is required and you can't ensure anything; so having > it mandatory is basically worthless, because someone who has to fill in > something but does not want to will put in trash_my_abuse at hotmail.com, > which is also perfectly valid, but does not buy you anything either. > > And for having a usable, maintainable automated system, it is easier to > take what is there (IRT is not really hard to figure out - it _is_ > basically like a maintainer), and write the apprpriate tools for that; > since you would have to write tools anyway. Personally I don't see the need for trust, Im sure we can all agree that no one but the LIR can enter the abuse address information (one way or the other), so the question is if any LIRs could want to falsefy an abuse address on their own inetnum object?! This is the reason why some of you keep talking about the need for trust, correct? If some LIRs need some kind of trust in order to avoid this I would suggest (as done before) that the abuse mail address is checked when creating a maintainer object. By checked I mean that Ripe NCC sends a mail to the mail address and wait for a reply before creating the maintainer object, this can actually be done with software so I don't think it will be a big burden on Ripe NCC. If this is not enough, if some LIRs fear that the LIRs in question would try to do an update and this way insert an invalid email address Im sure it wouldn't be a problem repeating the check procedure. 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
- 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 ]