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]/
Wrong "brian.nisbet at heanet.ie" (Was)=>[anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] whooh Suresh! Thank you for this 1. How about LASNIC?
- Next message (by thread): Wrong "brian.nisbet at heanet.ie" (Was)=>[anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[email protected]
world.antispam.report at inbox.com
Mon Aug 8 17:57:30 CEST 2011
Brian, with all do respect, the only topic that was at stake here, was any network who submit his datas to RIPE (Allocation), RIPE regulation state that you are "NOT PERMITED" to give false or erroneous or obviously misleading informations such as "Non-Valid" email addresses civic locations (Where, goegraphically you make business or false "Voice Mail" traps which n fact are never replied. In no manner what so ever, it was suggested that for now and until further notice, RIPE as any responsability toward any sort of SPAM fraud or illegal activities on the Internet. The only sole thing in the original RIPE registration regulation regarding the data a given network provides to RIPE for registering the RIPE allocated IP block number, is that RIPE wants to have valid factual datas like "Live" email addresses or civic address where the network really operates. Not an address located in a forest. Now, have you got any objection about RIPE's regulation that require that minimal amount of intellectual intregrety? We're all ears, go ahead. -----Original Message----- From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Sent: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:04:12 +0100 To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these? "Gert Doering" wrote the following on 28/07/2011 11:53: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:33:59PM +0200, Frank Gadegast wrote: >> RIPE is defny responsible for any abuse, whatever it is. > > So if you are hosting porn on your web site, and making it accessible > to minors, why exactly would the RIPE NCC be responsible for that? Before this particular thread of the discussion goes any further can I please remind people that neither the RIPE NCC nor the charter of this WG deals with content. If content breaks laws, then there are systems in place to deal with that on a per country basis and the NCC assists law enforcement when requested, however this mailing list is not the right place to debate matters of content. Brian. ____________________________________________________________ Send any screenshot to your friends in seconds... Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks. TRY IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if2 for FREE
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] whooh Suresh! Thank you for this 1. How about LASNIC?
- Next message (by thread): Wrong "brian.nisbet at heanet.ie" (Was)=>[anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]