Hal 100% agreed. If the emergency contact is made public it’ll become the default and will be rendered useless.
Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net> on behalf of Hal ponton <h...@buzcom.net> Date: Friday 31 March 2017 at 09:54 To: ox <an...@ox.co.za> Cc: "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] "abuse-c:" - a question....with no answers? Sorry didn't cc in the list, Regards, Hal Hal ponton<mailto:h...@buzcom.net> 31 March 2017 at 09:53 Andre, The issue I see with two contacts (emergency and standard) is that everyone will email the emergency contact. I fully agree that the response required for 1 spam email vs 10000 emails is vastly different, however, if someone wants a response they will email the account they think they'd get the fastest / best response from. It's just human nature. Whilst at first non-emergency complaints will be ignored, it will get to a "boy who cried wolf" situation where the amount of non-emergency emails vastly outweighs the emergency emails. To the point where the organisation will just treat the emergency mailbox the same as the current abuse mailbox. You would need some disincentive to email the emergency mailbox. Like on a train where if you pull the emergency handle without there being an emergency you get a fine. I'm not advocating a fine here, just something similar to try and regulate emails coming into the emergency mailbox.
