[db-wg] abuse-c

Hi Marco,


Im a bit confused.. Yesterday you did yourself suggest that abuse in the
maintainer should be mandatory:

> Extend mntner template with:

> abuse: [mandatory]  [multiple]


And now you say this doesn't work?? Or am I missing something?? If an abuse
address isn't made mandatory then realistically the majority of LIRs will
not enter an abuse address, meaning users will not trust this information
and keep sending complaints to all addresses = no good. You also suggested
in that mail to copy upd-to into the abuse attribute, which I also think is
a good idea.

You argue why multiple abuse addresses is necessary in inetnum objects, Im
not sure I understand what you mean, you're saying it will be way to hard
for users to choose the correct address if its single = only 1 mail
address..?? Anyway, if multiple addresses are required by some LIRs then we
of course need to do it this way, I just don't see a reason for making
anything multiple unless there is a clearly defined need.


This abuse-suggestion should benefit all LIRs so I would hope to hear some
comments from other LIRs since it will also affect all LIRs if we come to an
agreement.



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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: db-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:db-wg-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of
> Marco d'Itri
> Sent: 14. januar 2004 12:55
> To: db-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] abuse-c
>
>
> On Jan 14, Christian Rasmussen <chr at jay.net> wrote:
>
>  >Actually I kind of have the same need!.. :) But my idea would
> be to insert
>  >our abuse address in the maintainer so it defaults to this one, and then
>  >insert customer (more specific) abuse address in the inetnum.. The only
> If the problem is lusers who cannot choose the right address to send
> complaints to, then this is way too hard for them and is not a solution.
> Looks like we need to discuss again the requirements...
>
>  >> Extend mntner template with:
>  >>
>  >> abuse: [mandatory]  [multiple]
> I think many people already explained why making this mandatory would
> be too hard and not really useful.
>
>  >Aside from my comments above I fully support this. Do we now
> have something
>  >which a larger group could support??
> I'm not sure. I think that so far nobody disagreed with the proposal to
> return IRT objects by default for inetnum and inet6num queries, which
> has the advantages of using what is already available and probably being
> easy to implement.
> OTOH, the RIPE DB people have not explained us yet if this is feasible.
>
> --
> ciao, |
> Marco | [4094 coeYUCAGphQow]
>
>