chrish@consol.net wrote:
Hi!
Hi,
On 01/12/2012 01:54 PM, Frank Gadegast wrote:
You will have no access restrictions for the abuse contact anymore and the new abuse-c will be filled in a very short period because it will be mandatory.
The addresses entered into our ripe objects are not private data.
You are right, they are available for the public, but I meant the definition of public and privat data according to law (well, can only really speak for German law, but other countries see that the same way). So, they are public available, but they are no public data, they are private data, specially the email address. Its the same with e.g. domainowners, at least in Germany. The data of the resource/domain owner is private and has to be banned from automatic harvesting, thats why you need a captcha code to reveal it at denic.de Its the same with the admin-c in RIPEs resources. They should be private, but they are still available for automatic harvesting. This should be changed in a different approach. tech-c should stay public for routing issues. And the new abuse-c has to be public too for automatic reporting. Currently there is only some whois access restriction on some parts of some objects, but thats wrong and should be changed later. Some objects should be defined public including ALL their fields and some should be restricted completely.
They are public addresses for the purpose of ripe-stuff. Following your idea abuse-cs would always be copies of the admin-c.
Not at all, the owner of a resource is something different than the abuse team or the routing team.
A reasonable approach towards what seems to be your communicated aim would be: Drop all *-c in favour of a single contact
, which is meant as contact for ripe-stuff. This is of course public as it's meant that way. In case you actually wish for the possibility of multiple, specific contacts, the straightforward and all-compatible solution would be to add optional further specific contact data - that may be used by people who wish to direct mail to different specific addresses. Translated into the current state that would be: use an
Nope. "ripe-stuff" could be a lot of different things, and the plained three contacts seem to be the best way to always address the right contact for whatever purpose. optional abuse-mailbox attribute (if this were mandatory, our objects would always just hold a copy of the e-mail attribute).
But maybe they will not find them attractiv at all, because they know, that they will only reach professionals there, that can easily seperated spam from good mail and that are trained not to click every link in an email ;o)
Yeah, that will certainly teach them.
We do not know until we have some numbers ...
But anyway: it will be possible to protect personal contacts much better in the future, if the proposal gets through, because access
Sorry, but it's just a stupid idea to put private data into public databases.
Surely right. But what do you do, if the email address of the company owner needs to be entered ? Do you define and publish one, thats not read anyway ? Do you enter one that does not exist ? Or do you do it right and put the privat email address of the owner in ? There should be a way to seperate public and private data and thats whats the proposal plans. And if private data can be protected much better, everybody could decide to put in, whatever he likes, even the right thing ;o) Kind regards, Frank
Regards,
Chris
-- MOTD: "have you enabled SSL on a website or mailbox today ?" -- 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 ======================================================================