Hello again,
But it is not all bad news. We have an Abuse Finder Tool. This is still in a pre-production phase and is described on RIPE Labs: http://labs.ripe.net/content/updated-heuristics-abuse-finder-service
This service will find "abuse-mailbox:" attributes and related IRT objects and "remarks:" attributes that 'look like' they contain a reference to an abuse handler for any specified Internet resource. This service currently works for RIPE and APNIC resources. To a limited extent it also works with AfriNIC's data, but they don't use IRT objects or "abuse-mailbox:" so it can only look for "remarks:".
This service does not return any personal data other than abuse contacts. Therefore it is not subject to any access control limits. The tool provides 'on demand' access to abuse contacts as many times as you wish. This reduces, or in many cases eliminates, the need for access to bulk data.
I really love it. This is a really good idea and this might help a lot. BUT: (sorry I have to ;-) I found out a few things: At the moment the XML Webservice is restricted. I was just trying to penetrate that service a little bit and it shut down after about 15 minutes of excessive usage. The service might be a little slow to use it without local caching. But I think that will change in future and with the "real" API. And last but not least the problem all RIRs have and such a great thing as the Abuse Finder will not solve the integrity and correctness (not accuracy). I have done a test, I was using all 4791 (/8 up to /16) ranges from the RIPE Database and shot them into the Abuse Finder. 2616 did have a results, which is around 54% 2175 did not have any result, which is around 45% That problem should be addresses as well. Probably with a Best Practice Paper. At the end there are some questions about data output. For example: 134.61.0.0/16 This range is giving back 2 different addresses. That is absolutely correct, but does it make sense? This will lead again to frustration of not knowing which is the right place and correct way to publish abuse related data. So I'm still a big fan of the IRT Object, because it is tailor made and solves all those problems. And probably once there will be a time, were it is not necessary to offer abuse-mailbox attributes for any other objects than the IRT and not necessary to use remark fields for abuse contact publishing and at that time it is not needed to do up to 150 queries for one request at the Abuse Finder. Thanks Tobias