tony assumes that there would be no interest in the
community to support such an effort.
i think maybe he might be wrong here..
by the way tony...
is this your individual opinion or your
opinion in your capacity as a "consultant" to SAIC or NSI ?
ken stubbs
p.s.
my read is that NSI probably wouldn't be willing to
expend the resources necessary to support this internet
community service effort. (i.e. it might cost them
money...)
----- Original Message -----From: A.M. RutkowskiSent: Saturday, March 27, 1999 10:40 AMSubject: Re: NSI asks, what would be the expected role of an "abuse" contact? (was Re: [NIC-990226.52da] Suggestion: Add contact entry to whois)Carl,
As Mr. Rutkowski correctly points out, in some instances there is no...
in-addr-arpa record for the IP address from which the spam originated. In
that case, one may wish to turn to an IP address registry to attempt to
identify a responsible party to whom the spam activity may be reported.
It would, of course, involve actual work for NSI to establish an abuse
contact in the relevant databases and forms. But the benefit to the
Internet community in fighting spam and other abuses would be quite
tangible. NSI has an opportunity here to show that it has the interests of
This really isn't an NSI matter, per se. The only really
useful, definitive host identity is the host IP address.
The host name and its associated domains are irrelevant.
Furthermore, adding more fields to registrar
databases imposes a massive burden across the entire
distributed DNS with essentially zero corresponding benefit.
I sure don't want to have to deal with filling out yet another
contact data set to my registrar, Network Solutions, or further
impose that on registrants under my domains.
The appropriate way to do this is to focus on the IP Address
registries, and if necessary, improve the level of granularity
of the available information.
--tony
