Hi Suresh On 07/03/2016 10:57, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 07-Mar-2016, at 3:00 PM, Gilles Massen <gilles.massen@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@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: +---------------------------------------+