Hi, On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 10:30:27AM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Randy Bush wrote: > > so the idea is we mandate that there be an abuse-c: so that there is an > > email address where we can send mail to which there will be no response? > > you could just as easily make the same arguments about admin-c or tech-c.
But that's not half as botched as abuse-c:
(I do think that having well-defined abuse contacts are useful, but the
idea that the indirection has to go through an organization: object is
a computer scientists' idea on how the world has to work, and that
annoys me enough to hate the whole abuse-c: stuff)
Hierarchical inheritance is great. Put abuse-c: in your top-level inetnum,
and all is good. Put it into your org if you *want*. But if you have one
particular inetnum that wants a different abuse-c:, having to add a new
object to be able to do so is just... *argh*
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
pgpVdQYpAfVBr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
