On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 03:29:57PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
- if I understand correctly, this atribute is going to be added just because of those users, and because they often don't read what is there and send e-mail to whatever addresses they find, the abuse-c: should contain direct e-mail.
On 29.01 16:06, MarcoH wrote:
I want that object, because the number of wrongly addressed complaints is growing bigger as the daily portion of viagra advertisements. The cause for this are probably people who are to lazy read some docs before they start coding. But as I already said during the meeting, we're talking to the wrong group of people and it's hard to reach them for any input.
I understand your point. My point is, that a person doing whois lookup for an IP addresses will already get huge result, and lazy people take up first few addresses and quit. We want to avoid this, and returning the relevant data in a first few lines would help much. The IP lookup already returns huge amount of data which should probably be reduced. Not returning data usable only for maintainers, if the client does not request them all is a good point. Adding another person/role object as abuse contact won't do it, unless maintainers will re-use their contacts, in which case, the abuse-c: attribute is kinda useless.
- also, as MarcoH said, it's very easy to change remarks: to abuse-c:, while it's hard to put them all into newly created contacts.
Please note that it's not meant to be a :s/remarks/abuse/ on the database, but looking at the numbers (10% of the objects), people shouldn't really complain about the maintenance involved as they already need to update each and every inetnum object when you want to change the abuse address.
It would be nice if, while we're at it, we can make maintenance more easy, but it looks like already a lot of LIR's are using a unmaintainable system called remarks:
Of course. But it's always better to have this system then no no system at all. I asked our network maintainers to ass abuse data to remarks and will ask them for making abuse contact, when it will be pushed into production system.
- third argument is, as many organizations do have only one IP-range, they would really find creating of new handle superflous. (well, we have 3 ranges, and I think that's very easy to put e-mail to all of them)
They can always use the same role for all contacts.
which will overload roles with different types of data.
The best would probably be, if abuse-c: would accept e-mail, or pointer to another object, so the network maintainer could decide which one to use. - Is that possible?
That will create more confusion as you have to check what is returned.
Agreeed. So what about abuse: email versus abuse-c: handle? -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759