On 07-Mar-2016, at 3:00 PM, Gilles Massen <gilles.mas...@restena.lu> wrote: > > On 07/03/16 10:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> As a reporter of quite a lot of phish - I think having something that >> is standardized and machine parseable helps. >> >> Those that really don’t want to handle reports for a range might want >> to populate something standard there too (and yes, this is a semi >> ironic policy proposal) - devn...@example.com or whatever. > > "no abuse-c found" looks pretty machine parsable to me.
I might even agree with you, if abuse-c was actually standardized and if abuse contacts weren’t spread across a variety of other fields - such as the remarks. remarks: +---------------------------------------+ remarks: | In case of complaints use the contact | remarks: | information in the role object below. | remarks: +---------------------------------------+
