This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mark Scholten
mark at streamservice.nl
Mon May 3 16:57:02 CEST 2010
> -----Original Message----- > From: anti-abuse-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg- > admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Hogewoning > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 3:22 PM > To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy > Proposal > > (Wearing my private citizen head) > > > 4.3 Delete abuse-mailbox fields in all objects that do not define an > IRT, and delete > > the trouble field everywhere in 2011. > > This is a really bad idea, there is no guarantee those objects will > allready be updated to link to an IRT object, nor is there a guarantee > those objects will ever be updated to start linking to IRT. So you end > up throwing away perfectly good data and end up with even more > difficulties to find contact details. Is it acceptable for you if this is done when there is an IRT (and require it to have an IRT before 2013)? Mark
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]