On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 01:07:30PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
I looked at the inetnum object CISBRD-CUST-ADSL-113, one of these created by you for your broadband customers: it contains in the remarks attributes a well visible notice about where complaints should be sent, yet you say that you still get them at your personal email address. Do you really think that users would understand better if they read "abuse-mailbox: user@example.com" instead of that sentence in english which explains what the allocation is for and who should be notified of abuse? I do not pretend to be an expert in user interfaces, but I think that, for a random user, natural language should be easier to understand than something like "abuse-mailbox".
I think that there is a consensus that there is the need for a method to look up the abuse desk address for an IP address, and I believe that irt objects (which have the big advantage of existing) are fit to this.
The problem is that over 10% of the inetnum objects contain a remarks: attribute to an abuse contact. With this amount of usage, I think you can justify the creation of a dedicated attribute, which is not free-form and users don't have to rely on the string around it to find the correct address. MarcoH