j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
I agree to clarify the abuse POC. but your idea below, it seems to be many change the whois DB.
How about chang the "abuse-mailbox" field to be a mandatory? It will be able to implement with small change to whois DB.
-- Satoru Tsurumaki Softbank BB Corp.
-----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Tobias Knecht Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:41 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-079: Abuse contact information (abuse-c)
first of all thanks to all the people that have joined the discussion of this proposal.
There were loads of good ideas and I have learned a lot about different things.
I'm sorry that I have to say, that I made a mistake. I didn't know about the IRT-Object in the APNIC database. I knew about APNIC using the same DB as RIPE, but I thought the IRT was not implemented in the APNIC database. (Thanks to Terry Manderson)
With this knowledge my proposal would have been different. But it is not to late to change the actual proposal. But I want to summarize the discussed things and ask for your opinion and than change the proposal. Makes more sense and saves time.
The ideas that will follow are very similar to them we are working on for RIPE at the moment.
(1) Make the IRT-Object mandatory.
(2) Make the abuse-mailbox field within the IRT-Object mandatory. The reason is: e-mail field is the contact address for humans and the abuse-mailbox field is the contact address for reports.
(3) Request frequent updates of the IRT-Object (or more) and "force" owners to publish correct data (check email addresses, ...).
(4) Make abuse-mailbox fields unavailable in every other role or person object. Because it's not needed anymore.
(5) Make trouble fields unavailable. Because it's not needed anymore.
How about this quit different version? And sorry again for not knowing about the IRT Object.