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] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
denis
ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Mar 7 11:38:16 CET 2016
Hi Suresh On 07/03/2016 10:57, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 07-Mar-2016, at 3:00 PM, Gilles Massen <gilles.massen at restena.lu> > wrote: >> >> On 07/03/16 10:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> As a reporter of quite a lot of phish - I think having something >>> that is standardized and machine parseable helps. >>> >>> Those that really don’t want to handle reports for a range might >>> want to populate something standard there too (and yes, this is a >>> semi ironic policy proposal) - devnull at example.com or whatever. >> >> "no abuse-c found" looks pretty machine parsable to me. > > I might even agree with you, if abuse-c was actually standardized and > if abuse contacts weren’t spread across a variety of other fields - > such as the remarks. The "abuse-c:" IS standardised. It is well defined and documented as THE method of defining abuse contact details in the RIPE Database according to the policy. Historically, as I mentioned in other emails, there was "abuse-mailbox:" defined in 5 object types and users often put details in remarks. The plan was to do a cleanup after deploying "abuse-c:" and remove "abuse-mailbox:" from other object types and adjust the syntax. The RIPE NCC provides tools for finding abuse contacts based on "abuse-c:" and these can be used through the database API. Again if I can ever get people to accept that the data model needs 'some improvement', the API should provide a means to find information from the database rather than pull out blocks of raw data for human readable, manual interpretation. cheers denis > > remarks: +---------------------------------------+ remarks: > | In case of complaints use the contact | remarks: | > information in the role object below. | remarks: > +---------------------------------------+ > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]