<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
So, stepping back from debate mode, does this accurately capture the
majority of what we want to accomplish at this step?<br>
<br>
- Make it possible (and easy) for netblock holders to specify a
dedicated abuse contact.<br>
- Store such abuse contacts in the database.<br>
- Make it possible for anyone to query for the abuse contact
associated with an IP/netblock, without a 200-query limit.<br>
- Make netblock holders interacting with AfriNIC aware that they can
now add a dedicated abuse contact, and encourage them to do so if they
have such an address available.<br>
<br>
I think I've seen a consensus around those items, at least...<br>
<br>
-Scott<br>
<br>
On Tue 7/6/2010 2:40 PM, Tobias Knecht wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C33A2B7.8020204@abusix.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">That's fine by me, but, please keep in mind the following principle:
Duplication of the same data in databases is bad because it leads to loss
of synchronization of that data and poor maintenance practices.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
If the data would be there, we would not have to talk about the
implementation of such. The data, a dedicated abuse contact information
is not existent in the whois database at the moment. There are no abuse
addresses in the whois database.
We and several other reporting organizations have problems to deliver
spam complaints to these contacts, because they use spam filters. And it
is absolutely okay to use spamfilters on personal accounts. And there
are only personal accounts, because there is no abuse@ object, were
people can add a dedicated abuse@ address which for example is not using
a spamfilter. There are no non personal objects available to use and do
the right thing. And start using an abuse-c is not making it better. You
are allowing the members to use personal objects and filter the
complaints with a spamfilter.
Personal Objects are completely different than the IRT Object. That's
why RIPE is using them and that's why APNIC decided to use it. Because
they are tailor made.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It is my belief that the IRT object would result in this type of duplication
and loss of synchronization regardless of the front-end implementation.
If not immediately (assuming a perfect initial implementation of the
front-end), then, likely in the longer term as the synchronization
requirement gets forgotten in some future update to the front-end.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The point is, that we are not bringing up all our policy proposals at
once, so we would like to go step by step. And the problem you are
mentioning is not a problem of having a dedicated abuse contact object,
it's more a problem of data accuracy and people forgetting about
updating their objects.
Just have a look at this:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-084">http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-084</a>
This would be the next step after the abuse contact object.
Thanks,
Tobias
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>