Hi Gert I published some ideas almost 2 years ago on how we could improve abuse-c https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/suggestions-for-improving-abuse-handling I am not saying these are a perfect solution either, but no one was interested in discussing ways forward... ...dare I also say this clumsiness is partly due to the data model 'design'....which no one wants to discuss either. cheers denis On 03/03/2016 11:38, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 10:30:27AM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an email address where we can send mail to which there will be no response?
you could just as easily make the same arguments about admin-c or tech-c.
But that's not half as botched as abuse-c:
(I do think that having well-defined abuse contacts are useful, but the idea that the indirection has to go through an organization: object is a computer scientists' idea on how the world has to work, and that annoys me enough to hate the whole abuse-c: stuff)
Hierarchical inheritance is great. Put abuse-c: in your top-level inetnum, and all is good. Put it into your org if you *want*. But if you have one particular inetnum that wants a different abuse-c:, having to add a new object to be able to do so is just... *argh*
Gert Doering -- NetMaster