On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 11:57:50AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 12, MarcoH <marcoh@marcoh.net> wrote:
So what's the chance people will actually introduce enough IRT objects to make it usefull to look for them and at the same time enough toolwriters with some decent knowledge about the database to find the correct e-mail attribute ? I'd say it will be much higher than for abuse-mailbox given that it does not require to update each and every inetnum object.
To quote the original proposal: == The objects addressed by this proposal (inetnum:, inet6num:, person:, role:, mntner:) would be extended by the addition to their templates of a new attribute definition, as follows. abuse-mailbox: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key] The value of the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute must be a valid and active RFC-2822 address. == Where does this gives the need to update each and every object in the database ? Next to that, 10% of the inetnum objects contain the less maintainable remarks workaround. MarcoH