North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Suggestion: Add contact entry to whois
- From: Owen DeLong
- Date: Fri Feb 26 14:18:13 1999
OK, perhaps, then, we should consider two contacts:
Complaints contact (the destination for complaints about
SPAMMERS and such) (SPAM)
Enforcement contact (the destination for people who can respond
to real-time hacking concerns) (SMURF, FLOOD, HACKING)
Tech contact would still be my bet for Bad BGP, as this is usually
accidental and not malicious.
Bottom line, the Tech. contact for alot of these providers is an address
that gets reviewed once a day or such and doesn't provide anything more
effective than a secretary putting a post-it on the door. The Admin
contact is supposed to be just that, and usually is. The billing contact,
as I see it would only be used by InterNIC and possibly people who want
to seek reparations for SPAM.
I don't pretend that the names I chose above are necessarily the best terms
that can be applied, and I am flexible about what to call them. However,
I do think they are needed at this point.
> Owen DeLong wrote:
> > We already have Admin, Tech, and Billing. Would it be possible to consider
> > the addition of an Abuse contact in whois?
> The existing contacts serve that function. If someone at some place is
> smurfing you, you don't want to talk to some secretary who is going to
> stick a post-it on some manager's door about it. You want the NOC and
> you want the person in the NOC who can initiate immediate investigation
> and correct the problem. Well, at least I do.
> Define "abuse". It comes in a lot of categories, anyway. Which category
> do you think an abuse contact should be getting them for? Smurf? Flood?
> Spam? Bad BGP? Hacking?
> -- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * --
> -- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | --
> -- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | --
> -- *-----------------------------* phil at intur.net * --