[db-wg] abuse-c
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
MarcoH
marcoh at marcoh.net
Tue Jan 13 16:28:19 CET 2004
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:14:13PM +0100, Christian Rasmussen wrote: > Hi Marco, > > > Okay, I think I now understand better what you mean. There are different > levels of check of entered abuse address: > > 1. Nothing > 2. Syntax check > 3. Address validity check (as previously described) > 4. Response time check level 4 would be to run random audits on the information present in the database. Response time will only influence the time it takes to create or update an object I never suggested on testing it, it's just a side effect on level 3. > I very much disagree with you that level 3 should be worthless, I think its > about as good as it can realistic be. > > How do you propose level 4 should be accomplished without in some way > costing ressources (considerably more than level 3)? > > If you want audit on LIRs then abuse is probably not the only thing which > should be thoroughly checked. Also, what would you do in case some LIRs > choose not to respond to abuse complaints? > > I also still support the proposed idea with abuse address in > inetnum/maintainer, but if the argument against is the lack of trust I think > a level 3 check would solve the problem. Level 3 only checks the situation at the time of insertion it is in no way a guarantee to the user that it's still working when he retrieves the information and as such doesn't add much to just do a syntax check on the attribute. Grtx, MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]