On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Now, is anyone against publishing the list of debian.net entries and the > entry <-> registrant association (provided the above conditions are > met)?
That is already published in DNS: pabs@chianamo ~ $ dig -t txt mentors.debian.net | grep TXT ;mentors.debian.net. IN TXT mentors.debian.net. 3593 IN TXT "Christoph Haas <h...@debian.org>" mentors.debian.net. 3593 IN TXT "PGP 9B26 F48E 6F2B 0A3F 7E33 E6B7 095E 77C5 79CC 6586" > To me, the most reasonable solution seems to consider that the > registrant is the responsible contact point for the service. Publishing > the entry <-> registrant association we will de facto document who to > contact. I agree with you that publishing the real contact address on > the service web site would make the problem moot. So, proxies who do not > want to be bothered as contact points should simply encourage the > actual services admins to document the 'real' contact point. (This > leaves out the case of debian.net services that are not 'web' services, > but they should be documented anyhow, so...) Agreed. Also, for domains that are not CNAMEs, there is the possibility for the registrant to document real contact points in DNS TXT records: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2010/05/msg00006.html -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6gyel6x-g88zeo49_fihejqfwklu1fnczkaeu2048m...@mail.gmail.com
