MarcoH wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:52:04AM +0100, Ulrich Kiermayr wrote:
Hi *,
Im not sure why it should be multiple? But I think most of us on this list can agree with you that a valid abuse email address associated with each inetnum in the database would be very welcome.
Just a stupid question: how do you assure the address is valid in the first place, and after that stays valid, i.e. there is a human behind it reading it? (without putting additional workload on the NCC manual validating all of these)
Let's just limit it to be syntactically correct accoording to whatever the rfc at that moment specify as 'syntactically correct'.
There is no other way of ensuring that it's valid on a certain moment. There is still some form of 'trust' involved as to the point that the LIR inserting the address takes abuse serious. And I hope the majority still does, so the system would work and people don't have to use other things like mailing all addresses they can find related to an address upto and including hostmaster@ripe.net.
Sorry to be picky, but I still do not get it: then what is the advantage of abuse-c: abuse@here.there.nl over remarks: abuse-c: abuse@here.there.nl as you stated trust is required and you can't ensure anything; so having it mandatory is basically worthless, because someone who has to fill in something but does not want to will put in trash_my_abuse@hotmail.com, which is also perfectly valid, but does not buy you anything either. And for having a usable, maintainable automated system, it is easier to take what is there (IRT is not really hard to figure out - it _is_ basically like a maintainer), and write the apprpriate tools for that; since you would have to write tools anyway. I hope that makes sense. lG uk -- Ulrich Kiermayr Zentraler Informatikdienst der Universitaet Wien Network - Security - ACOnet-CERT Universitaetsstrasse 7, 1010 Wien, AT eMail: ulrich.kiermayr@univie.ac.at Tel: (+43 1) 4277 / 14104 PGP Key-ID: 0xA8D764D8 Fax: (+43 1) 4277 / 9140