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/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reporting spam
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Thu Nov 11 12:07:15 CET 2010
On 11/11/10 10:21, Frank Gadegast wrote: > >> But making things mandatory doesn't solve poor design. > > > ??? please explain, dont get it. > You are unable to find the (abuse) contact because you don't know where to look, not that it isn't there because it wasn't mandatory. > We also get a lot of feedback from end users, that they fixed > the security hole of their housing server, after we informed them. > This is great. > We detect network sniffing BEFORE it actually steals passwords, by > monitoring the MAC-addresses in our network. > But you are talking about your own customers. You will always have their contact information. > DDoS attacks happen every day, get detected and blocked. Exactly. Just like spam. > There is no need for an email address of the admin-c. > I disagree, but it's optional and thats great.
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reporting spam
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]