[db-wg] Proposal: Abuse-C as a Reference

On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 15:32, Ulrich Kiermayr wrote:

<SNIP>

> because Abuse is handled by someone else that technical Issues on the 
> Network.
> 
> And I see gain here. where es you do not loose something if you like to 
> achieve the first.
> 
> Hmm (I think there are a lot of Inetnums out there where admin-c == 
> tech-c at the moment; where is the gain in that?)

Thus you want to stick a different person/role in *every* allocation?
I sure hope you will never have to change that or that you use role
accounts.

Why do you not just use IRT?

The prime reason, with which I agree, is that there is this 'mandatory'
encryption field. Two things:
 - either RIPE can make it an optional field.
 - people don't mail using it because they ignore it ;)
     I don't see automated tools encrypting anyways...

Another thing which might be considered is adding a 'abuse-mailbox' and
'spam-mailbox' to the IRT object, making everybody happy.

Any other 'issues' with IRT? (which doesn't require one to update *all*
their objects. Of course replacing it is 'easy' with a shell one liner,
request all the refered objects from whois and update them.

Checking your stats also shows that only 3x the amount of IPv4 inetnum's
have a abuse@ line in comparison to the amount of objects with irt's.
I think that reason awareness for adding IRT's is something which is
something which is much higher on the priority list then and not
inventing yet another object...

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20040506/06144304/attachment.sig>