Hi Sebastian,
Im not sure if you have seen my previous mail, but I suggested to add a field called "abuse-address" in the maintainer object and make a rule saying Ripe NCC MUST check that the email address is correct by sending a mail to it and not create the maintainer object until the mail has been responded.
I don't think that this is useful, because I'd maybe like to set different abuse contacts for different inet[6]num objects, but want to be able to protect all those objects with one and the same maintainer
Okay, this was discussed yesterday and we talked about a combination of what Daniel Karrenberg suggested and the above, meaning you just add an optional abuse attribute to the inetnum objects, if its not added the abuse address will "default" to the abuse address of the maintainer object. Wouldn't this work for you?
object. Besides, I don't think that we really need to validate the existence of the email address supplied.
hm.. honestly I must agree, I very much doubt any LIR will try to forge an abuse address.. But I understand that is the reason for encryption features of the current irt object, so if somekind of check mechanism is needed for certain LIRs to use this concept I suggest the email address is checked as described above.
I'd also like to see a mandatory/multiple abuse-c field containing a rfc-valid email address.
Im not sure why it should be multiple? But I think most of us on this list can agree with you that a valid abuse email address associated with each inetnum in the database would be very welcome. 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