Re: Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects?
Luis Muñoz <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Oct 29, 2012, at 12:32 PM, Gould, James wrote: > Is there truly a problem being solved by adding a new per-object contact > type with an abuse contact? Definitely. Sites like abuse.net exist to fill the gap, with varied levels of success. The gradual implementation of abuse contacts at the RIR level would also suggest the problem is real. > I'm assuming that the technical or registrant > contact can be contacted in the event of abuse at the object level. Yes, and that is precisely part of the problem. A Domain object has three contacts: A "Registrant", a "Technical" and an "Administrative" contact. Which one is the right one for abuse complaints? In my experience, I've seen that the community tends to choose the technical contact. For operations where this is the wrong choice, this means that special arrangements need to be made for mail to be forwarded to the right people in order to act on the complaints, which more often than not results in complaints that reach nowhere. I'm sure we can all setup mail forwarding with out hands tied, but apparently this is a very rare skill. This trend is so prevalent, that many Registrants simply opted to use abuse@ as their tech contact. Here, the problem happens the other way around: Technical issues need to be extracted out of the sea of complaints. Now, if there were a dedicated point of contact for abuse, each area would receive the messages they need and be able to easily act on them. > Adding a new contact type across the registrars and registries is a large > change that would need to solve a real problem and be critical enough to > justify the change. Which is why I would argue it should be defined as optional and implemented by interested parties. I have no doubt that over time this will be mandatory due to operational needs. > [...] Is this a nice to have set of information or a must have > based on a real world problem? There would be far less firewall rules if we had a mechanism like this in place. What happens now is that an abuse complaint is fired, no response is received, abuse continues, firewall rule is added. To some, this resolves the problem. However, this is not a sustainable strategy. Best regards -lem _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg