Ulrich Kiermayr <ulrich.kiermayr@univie.ac.at> wrote:
abuse-mailbox:
Specifies the e-mail address to which abuse complaints should be sent.
[...]
In my opinion this aproach is wrong. an inetnum or route does not have an email or even read emails. There is *someone* there handling abuse,
seconded.
My view. It is valid to add the abuse mailbox to objects that describe Prrsons or Groups of them (person:, role:, organisation:), but to implement a reference to them for objects that describe ressources (inetnum, inet6num, route, ....). 'abuse-c:' for example.
There seems to be an important difference between an "abuse-mailbox:" in an inetnum, route, ... object and in a person, role, ... object. For the first group it denominates the contect when the object "hosts" the source of the complaint, while for the second group it specifies a purpose specific alternative address. I'm neither sure mixing these is a good idea nor do I understand whether the alternative address will take off. Is it meant to make me able to re-route any abuse complaints targeted at myself to, say, abuse@example.com? What happens if the same person is listed as contact for different organisations, so this re-routing would have to be context sensitive? -Peter