Hi Marco, Im a bit confused.. Yesterday you did yourself suggest that abuse in the maintainer should be mandatory:
Extend mntner template with:
abuse: [mandatory] [multiple]
And now you say this doesn't work?? Or am I missing something?? If an abuse address isn't made mandatory then realistically the majority of LIRs will not enter an abuse address, meaning users will not trust this information and keep sending complaints to all addresses = no good. You also suggested in that mail to copy upd-to into the abuse attribute, which I also think is a good idea. You argue why multiple abuse addresses is necessary in inetnum objects, Im not sure I understand what you mean, you're saying it will be way to hard for users to choose the correct address if its single = only 1 mail address..?? Anyway, if multiple addresses are required by some LIRs then we of course need to do it this way, I just don't see a reason for making anything multiple unless there is a clearly defined need. This abuse-suggestion should benefit all LIRs so I would hope to hear some comments from other LIRs since it will also affect all LIRs if we come to an agreement. Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Christian Rasmussen Hosting manager, jay.net a/s Smedeland 32, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark Email: noc@jay.net Personal email: chr@corp.jay.net Tlf./Phone: +45 3336 6300, Fax: +45 3336 6301 Produkter / Products: http://hosting.jay.net
-----Original Message----- From: db-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:db-wg-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Marco d'Itri Sent: 14. januar 2004 12:55 To: db-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [db-wg] abuse-c
On Jan 14, Christian Rasmussen <chr@jay.net> wrote:
Actually I kind of have the same need!.. :) But my idea would be to insert our abuse address in the maintainer so it defaults to this one, and then insert customer (more specific) abuse address in the inetnum.. The only If the problem is lusers who cannot choose the right address to send complaints to, then this is way too hard for them and is not a solution. Looks like we need to discuss again the requirements...
Extend mntner template with:
abuse: [mandatory] [multiple] I think many people already explained why making this mandatory would be too hard and not really useful.
Aside from my comments above I fully support this. Do we now have something which a larger group could support?? I'm not sure. I think that so far nobody disagreed with the proposal to return IRT objects by default for inetnum and inet6num queries, which has the advantages of using what is already available and probably being easy to implement. OTOH, the RIPE DB people have not explained us yet if this is feasible.
-- ciao, | Marco | [4094 coeYUCAGphQow]