Reply to comment:

<div class="content legacycomment"> <p> I agree with Tobias that some hints about how the e-mail addresses were selected </p> <p> is essential for this to be really useful. I&nbsp;see that it is difficult; however overcoming </p> <p> that difficulty would make the tool very much more useful. </p> <p> Providing black boxes that return e-mail addresses is a dangerous thing to do, because </p> <p> before you know it, tools and ignorant users alike will just use those addresses. </p> <p> Tagging them, or ordering them by relevance, may help here. </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> <p> I&nbsp;also note that the prototype has a tendency to list more often than it should. </p> <p> Examples I&nbsp;came across:&nbsp;RFC1918 address space and Some improvement </p> <p> of the heuristics is needed before gets flooded with even more mail. </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> <p> One suggestion: Run the tool on all allocations and assignments made by the RIPE&nbsp;NCC. </p> <p> Then do some stats on all the returned e-mail addresses. This may provide some insight </p> <p> into where the heuristics can be improved. </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> <p> I&nbsp;agree that better definitions of where to put abuse contact information is needed, </p> <p> however that shold not prevent us from improving tools like this that use existing </p> <p> information and heuristics. As more structured abuse information becomes available </p> <p> it will only make these tools stronger. </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> <p> Daniel </p> </div>