[db-wg] abuse-c: proposal

On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:29:57PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:

> - if I understand correctly, this atribute is going to be added just
> because of those users, and because they often don't read what is there
> and send e-mail to whatever addresses they find, the abuse-c: should
> contain direct e-mail.

I want that object, because the number of wrongly addressed complaints is
growing bigger as the daily portion of viagra advertisements. The cause
for this are probably people who are to lazy read some docs before they
start coding. But as I already said during the meeting, we're talking to
the wrong group of people and it's hard to reach them for any input.
 
> - also, as MarcoH said, it's very easy to change remarks: to abuse-c:,
> while it's hard to put them all into newly created contacts.

Please note that it's not meant to be a :s/remarks/abuse/ on the database,
but looking at the numbers (10% of the objects), people shouldn't really
complain about the maintenance involved as they already need to update
each and every inetnum object when you want to change the abuse address.

It would be nice if, while we're at it, we can make maintenance more easy,
but it looks like already a lot of LIR's are using a unmaintainable system
called remarks:
 
> - third argument is, as many organizations do have only one IP-range, they
> would really find creating of new handle superflous. (well, we have 3
> ranges, and I think that's very easy to put e-mail to all of them)

They can always use the same role for all contacts.

> The best would probably be, if abuse-c: would accept e-mail, or pointer to
> another object, so the network maintainer could decide which one to use.
> - Is that possible?

That will create more confusion as you have to check what is returned.

MarcoH