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] RIPE Database Access Control
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] RIPE Database Access Control
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] RIPE Database Access Control
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
chrish at consol.net
chrish at consol.net
Thu Mar 8 13:06:44 CET 2012
Hi! On 03/08/2012 12:29 PM, Denis Walker wrote: > 1) We think it is more intuitive to have to ask to receive the personal > data, rather than be given it by default. > 2) Regardless of default behaviour, we think when they hit the limit, > they should not get completely blocked. Instead, a user should still be > able to access the RIPE Database, but without receiving any personal > data in their query results. > > We typically block about 50 IP addresses per day for excessive querying > of personal data. Most people who contact ripe-dbm with questions about > blocking did not realise they should use '-r' if they do not want > personal data. IMHO not doing recursion/reference resolving on the server side is most straightforward, implementing recursion or resolving of references client side seems to me like the 'natural' approach. Providing a switch to ask for server side recursion/reference resolving in this sense sounds like a comfortable solution. But again - what's the rationale for blocking, what makes querying excessive in your eyes? (I.e. what's the problem to the solution?) Regards, Chris
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] RIPE Database Access Control
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] RIPE Database Access Control
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]