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 and comments - prop 2010-08
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Webmail abuse mitigation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Alessandro Vesely
vesely at tana.it
Thu Nov 18 16:48:19 CET 2010
On 17/Nov/10 14:11, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > First - I support the addition of a mandatory abuse-mailbox: field in > the IRT object. +1 > 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) I hope theses issues will be addressed next.
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Support and comments - prop 2010-08
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Webmail abuse mitigation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]