Tobias Knecht wrote:
Hi,
Hi Tobias,
Dont forget that the abuse-mailbox is mandatory, the new abuce-c isnt (and its also hierachically).
Don't forget hierarchy. If X.0.0.0/8 has an abuse-c all ips in this range are covered. If somebody wants to handle his own abuse he can add an abuse-c as well. If the maintainer of X.0.0.0/8 does not want to be responsible he has to ask his customers to publish an abuse-c.
Thats a big point FOR the proposal. It will force the maintainer of the /8 to force his customers to migrate to the new abuce-c pretty quick.
attribute of the abuse-c. In the transitionphase this result will come up first and the other "old" results will come up if the first result is not possible to find. Later on there is only the mailbox attribute coming from an abuse-c.
Just what I meant, it will be perfect. One API or whois call or visit to the abuse finder tool to find the reponsible abuse email address, automatic or not, it simply will work for every complaint.
And personal objects ARE restricted, what compicates things a lot.
As well this should not happen any more. Before sending the report to a personal address you should use hierarchy and go up one level and report things to this level. They can take care in whatever way they find it would be appropriate.
We regulary climb that latter and often end up at hostmaster@ripe.net or bitbucket@ripe.net (or similar at the other RIRs) after making lots of unneeded queries :o( abuce-c will be much better than the confusion that we have right now (I even saw whois output with a different abuse-mailbox email that was mentioned in the remarks ;o)
Ok, so lets restrict access to personal objects even more and lets have a non mandatory and public abuse-c without any restriction.
I do not get the point why data other than abuse-mailbox would be needed in an unrestricted way.
That not what I meant, we will be happy, if the abuce-c is in place and its abuse-mailbox field queries will be unrestricted.
The abuse-c will be mandatory for at least the highest allocation, which gives you an abuse-mailbox attribute for every single ip address. So why
I know, thats why I support this proposal 100% +1
would we need an unrestricted email-attribute, phone number, street and name of the object?
And I still like the idea of an "preferred contact method" field, so we can decide what format to use automatically.
There is a project working on this as a DNS based service in the IETF ARF Working Group.
I'm absolutely against defining formats in the whois database. I could accept channels as soon as there are other channels finding their way in the everydays life of an abuse department. Putting formats into the whois things get polluted with stuff that has nothing to do in the whois. And second keeping this up2date is a pain. An abuse department does probably not want to get on NOCs people nerves and requests updates every once in a while.
Ok, can see that one too ... was just an idea that will help our daily work ... Kind regards, Frank
Thanks,
Tobias
-- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank@powerweb.de