Marco d'Itri wrote:
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.
100% agreed. Then let me turn that a bit. return what is in mnt-irt by default, add abuse-mailbox to things beeing someone. and permit Person/Roles in the 'mnt-irt:' attribute for those that do not want to bother with the referencing/gpg/crypto stuff. (irt is more of a role than a maintainer anyway) and no RFC2822 email in objects that describe a ressource. and modify the querying (-c, -b) to return that properly on first sight. lG uk -- Ulrich Kiermayr Zentraler Informatikdienst der Universitaet Wien Network - Security - ACOnet-CERT Universitaetsstrasse 7, 1010 Wien, AT eMail: ulrich.kiermayr@univie.ac.at Tel: (+43 1) 4277 / 14104 PGP Key-ID: 0xA8D764D8 Fax: (+43 1) 4277 / 9140