Activity Summary
- 4755 days inactive
- 4755 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 2 participants
- 1 comments
j
: Next unread message k
: Previous unread message j a
: Jump to all threads
j l
: Jump to MailingList overview
Bah @ no-reply-to-list set...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark Foster blakjak@gmail.com Date: Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Accuracy of Whois Data To: Sanjaya sanjaya@apnic.net
I say yes! Though I suggest the process is well thought through, as there is some cleverness that should be applied - around whether positive action is required to perform the annual validation; around what action should be taken if a message bounces; _how_ failures will be detected (email addresses which don't NDR but otherwise don't actually result in a positive answer, do they count as 'valid' ?)...
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Sanjaya sanjaya@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Mark and all,
What APNIC secretariat can do and has been doing is to maintain the accuracy of the direct allocation/assignment information through our account relationship with the resource holder. We also ran a continuous campaign for correct whois information through our trainings and other outreach activities.
Any feedback sent to APNIC helpdesk about incorrect contact information will be relayed to the account contacts and corrected based on their input.
The idea proposed in this forum about sending automated reminders to our members to confirm/update their whois data is good and should be easily implementable. This may create some rather bulky emails to members with numerous delegated prefixes, but should be acceptable if sent only annually. Should we do this?
And FWIW, ARIN has also been dealing with a similar set of issues recently (after being given a policy mandate to validate whois POCs), so collaboration between the RIRs on this subject would be a Good Thing.
-Scott
On 2/1/2010 10:14 PM, Mark Foster wrote:
Bah @ no-reply-to-list set...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Mark Foster* <blakjak@gmail.com mailto:blakjak@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Accuracy of Whois Data To: Sanjaya <sanjaya@apnic.net mailto:sanjaya@apnic.net>
I say yes! Though I suggest the process is well thought through, as there is some cleverness that should be applied - around whether positive action is required to perform the annual validation; around what action should be taken if a message bounces; _how_ failures will be detected (email addresses which don't NDR but otherwise don't actually result in a positive answer, do they count as 'valid' ?)...
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Sanjaya <sanjaya@apnic.net mailto:sanjaya@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Mark and all, What APNIC secretariat can do and has been doing is to maintain the accuracy of the direct allocation/assignment information through our account relationship with the resource holder. We also ran a continuous campaign for correct whois information through our trainings and other outreach activities. Any feedback sent to APNIC helpdesk about incorrect contact information will be relayed to the account contacts and corrected based on their input. The idea proposed in this forum about sending automated reminders to our members to confirm/update their whois data is good and should be easily implementable. This may create some rather bulky emails to members with numerous delegated prefixes, but should be acceptable if sent only annually. Should we do this?
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy