[db-wg] More-specific abuse-c

> In the problem statement, I think it would be a good idea to address the
> existence of the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute as well. This is causing a lot
> of confusion over the proper usage of "abuse-c:". With the right
> implementation, we should end up in a position to remove "abuse-mailbox:"
> altogether.
>

​The problem imho with the abuse-mailbox is, that it still exists in places
where it should not exist and is misused in certain cases.

The difference between an email attribute and the abuse-mailbox attribute
is, that email is for person to person messages, while abuse-mailbox is
used for automated reports.
This is been used very actively and very successful by a lot of network
operators and organizations that send automated reports.

I'd object to remove the abuse-mailbox attribute.


On another note I find it slightly strange, that in almost every threat
about abuse-c the topic of data accuracy is brought up, but policy
proposals like the abuse-c for legacy space has been withdrawn due lack of
consensus.

Thanks,

Tobias


 ​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20161109/6f870fd6/attachment.html>