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] Support and comments - prop 2010-08
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Support of, and comments on, proposal 2010-08
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Support and comments - prop 2010-08
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
suresh at hserus.net
Wed Nov 17 14:11:00 CET 2010
First - I support the addition of a mandatory abuse-mailbox: field in the IRT object. I have two caveats to raise - 1. There is no requirement that the contact information be accurate (that the mailbox exists and is monitored, action taken on reports) 2. There is no mention of what action should / will be taken in case this contact information turns out to be wrong (or deliberately faked) thanks suresh This statement of support is in my personal capacity as an antispam volunteer and postmaster for the past 15 years, and does not represent any statement or commitment made by my employer. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 300 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20101117/b4747972/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Support of, and comments on, proposal 2010-08
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Support and comments - prop 2010-08
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]