[ppml] Proposal: make Abuse Handle *REQUIRED* for AS Registration

[sigma at smx.pair.com]

> OK, perhaps I am mis-understanding something.
> 
> You seem to be implying that if a registrant elects NOT to specify an abuse
> handle, then the Internet community should consider the Tech handle to be
> the abuse contact?

I'm fairly certain that almost everyone has been operating under this
assumption, whether warranted or not.  Particularly as there exists an
optional abuse contact, if one isn't provided, the tech contact seems like
an implicit fallback.  The other assumption, that the netblock owner does
not wish to be contacted regarding abuse, seems intractable.

> I have NOT been operating under this assumption.  I assume the tech handle
> for an AS registration is NOT the abuse contact, but rather a router
> engineer.  I'm trying to be very, very careful about what contact I start
> sending notices to as maintaing my reputation in the security community is
> my primary concern.

I understand that, certainly.  Likely many tech contacts do not wish to
receive abuse-related e-mails, whether from automated systems or not.  Yet
their remedy should be to register an abuse contact and handle the e-mail
received there as appropriate.

> If I can't identify a specific abuse contact, I do NOT send a notice...or I
> just default to postmaster@ ... which ultimately goes no where, or isn't
> monitored by a human.

Well, postmaster@ should ultimately go somewhere, but it's even less likely
to be the correct, recipient, I would believe.

Kevin