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] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Peter Koch
pk at DENIC.DE
Mon Dec 12 17:33:23 CET 2011
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 08:17:18PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > It is a FAQ, not an advocacy portal. i'd like to suggest the FAQ is maintained as part of the NCC's operational duties. My experience is that NCC staff quite well listens to community input, but this should not encourage micro management. > Simply link to the MAAWG best practices document - there's several > available for providers, end users etc. MAAWG is but one organization. I am not convinced that, undue endorsement or not, the user community is best served by a 'simple link' to MAAWG documents. -Peter
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Spam FAQs need revision, was 2011-06 New Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]