On Feb 16, Ulrich Kiermayr <ulrich.kiermayr@univie.ac.at> wrote:
In my opinion this aproach is wrong. an inetnum or route does not have an email or even read emails. There is *someone* there handling abuse, who has an email (maybe designated for abuse) that is reading malis and hopefully doing something. What do I miss here.
My view. It is valid to add the abuse mailbox to objects that describe Prrsons or Groups of them (person:, role:, organisation:), but to implement a reference to them for objects that describe ressources (inetnum, inet6num, route, ....). 'abuse-c:' for example. Agreed. Note that this "reference" is irt-mnt. It's annoying that requests to have IRT records returned by default have been ignored. I do not remember anybody arguing against this, and without this IRT records are just dead.
-- ciao, Marco