Hi, On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 11:40:25PM +0100, Tobias Knecht wrote:
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about abuse-c the topic of data accuracy is brought up, but policy proposals like the abuse-c for legacy space has been withdrawn due lack of consensus.
This is not a contradiction. Forcing legacy holders to add "something" to the database is not magically going to create "good quality data" for that something. As is the mandatory abuse-c today - it created "something" (so we can now tout how wonderfully complete our database is), but given that it was forced upon non-caring people, the *quality* of the recorded abuse-c: values is not necessarily better than it would have been for "if you care, please register an abuse-c:". For our data, the data quality is less good than before, as I find it far too annoying to register abuse-c: for customer networks where the abuse mails *could* be going directly (our parent abuse-c: points to our abuse handling team, so mails are going to be handled, but might take longer to reach the customer). For many PI holders I have seen auto-generated abuse-c: ("forced!"), which bascically duplicates the normal contact info. Yay. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279