[db-wg] abuse-c

In message <20040113172959.226da92f.sabt at sabt.net>, Sebastian Abt writes:
>* Ulrich Kiermayr <ulrich.kiermayr at univie.ac.at> wrote:
>
>> Just a stupid question: how do you assure the address is valid in the 
>> first place, and after that stays valid,  i.e. there is a human behind
>> it reading it? (without putting additional workload on the NCC manual 
>> validating all of these)
>
>That's exactly the point why I think that we don't need any other kind
>of validation than syntax validation.  Every LIR should be interested in
>taking care about abuse complaints (doesn't matter which kind of abuse).
>If one doesn't, addressing this on public mailing lists or adjusting
>filters helps a lot.

It seems to me that a lot of the discussions we see on the ripe lists
suffer from the same basic confusion between "tools" and "best practice".

In this case the addition or non-addition of the "abuse-c" field
is a tool issue.

What people fill in the field if we add it, and how they react to
what gets sent there, that is "best practice" issues.

I seem to recall from the past that we can resolve and decide on
tools issues, and that we get nothing but endless supplies of 
fingerpointing and pulpitpounding emails when we discuss "best
practice" issues.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.