On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 15:32, Ulrich Kiermayr wrote: <SNIP>
because Abuse is handled by someone else that technical Issues on the Network.
And I see gain here. where es you do not loose something if you like to achieve the first.
Hmm (I think there are a lot of Inetnums out there where admin-c == tech-c at the moment; where is the gain in that?)
Thus you want to stick a different person/role in *every* allocation? I sure hope you will never have to change that or that you use role accounts. Why do you not just use IRT? The prime reason, with which I agree, is that there is this 'mandatory' encryption field. Two things: - either RIPE can make it an optional field. - people don't mail using it because they ignore it ;) I don't see automated tools encrypting anyways... Another thing which might be considered is adding a 'abuse-mailbox' and 'spam-mailbox' to the IRT object, making everybody happy. Any other 'issues' with IRT? (which doesn't require one to update *all* their objects. Of course replacing it is 'easy' with a shell one liner, request all the refered objects from whois and update them. Checking your stats also shows that only 3x the amount of IPv4 inetnum's have a abuse@ line in comparison to the amount of objects with irt's. I think that reason awareness for adding IRT's is something which is something which is much higher on the priority list then and not inventing yet another object... Greets, Jeroen