Reply to comment:

Anonymous
<div class="content legacycomment"> <p> &gt; A: We did think about applying some weighting to the email addresses returned. However, the abuse handling data is not structured within the RIPE Database. There are many <br /> &gt; places the abuse handling email can be put. This depends on where the network administrator thinks is the most appropriate place. It could be in an IRT object. Or in the <br /> &gt; admin-c of the maintainer of the INETNUM object. Because it is very subjective, one address is no more valuable or important than another. In most cases you are unlikely <br /> &gt; to receive a long list of email address options. So the actual objects they came from is less important. </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> <p> That is one of the reasons for our policy proposal. Would it make sense to start this proposal pretty soon and wait with the abuse Finder until a decission is made? </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> <p> Thanks, </p> <p> Tobias </p> </div>